DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/28/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 7-11, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs et al. (US 2019/0186007, of record and hereinafter “Jacobs”) in view of Ramirez-Serrano et al. (US 2021/0114926, hereinafter “Ramirez”).
Claim 1: Jacobs discloses a method (Figs.1-4) comprising:
filling a hollow structure (201; see [0025]) with a gas or a vapor (see steps 112 and 116 of Fig.1; see also [0049], which discloses an alternate example, where the substrates are joined together in a low-pressure environment to provide the dipolar molecular gas);
sealing, subsequent to filling the hollow structure with the gas or the vapor, a portion of the hollow structure to form a container enclosing the gas or the vapor (see [0049], which discloses an alternate example, where the substrates are joined together in a low-pressure environment to provide the dipolar molecular gas); and
forming an electromagnetic reflective coating inside (steps 104 and 106; see [0027]-[0029]) or outside (210,. 220 in step 110) the container to form an electromagnetic waveguide (201, which is an electromagnetic waveguide; see [0024]).
Jacobs does not explicitly disclose that the gas or vapor is filled “to a target purity level”. However, it is the position of the examiner that Jacobs at a desired or target purity level in [0049], where dipolar gas is provided at a particular pressure during the bonding process. Ramirez discloses a similar vapor cell sealing method where a contact bond is provided in a background environment of a “high purity gas”, i.e. a gas of an arbitrary high “target” value (see [0040]). Both Jacobs and Ramirez disclose a functional relationship between vapor gas purity and device performance, e.g. transition width and performance (see [0049] of Jacobs and [0012], [0014] of Ramirez). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have filled the vapor cell to a “target” purity level, as implied by Jacobs and disclosed by Ramirez, in order to have provided a desired device performance.
Claim 7: Jacobs discloses wherein forming an electromagnetic reflective coating inside or outside the container includes forming the electromagnetic reflective coating inside the container (see Fig.13 and [0027]).
Claim 8: Jacobs discloses wherein the electromagnetic reflective coating includes a non-reactive metal (gold; see [0027]).
Claim 9: Jacobs discloses forming an electromagnetic reflective coating inside or outside the container includes forming the electromagnetic reflective coating outside the container (210 and 220 in step 110).
Claim 10: Jacobs discloses wherein forming the electromagnetic reflective coating outside the container includes forming the electromagnetic reflective coating on an exterior surface of the container (see Fig.13, where 220 and 210 are formed on the exterior surface of the container).
Claim 11: Jacobs discloses wherein the electromagnetic reflective coating includes a reactive metal (copper; see [0045]).
Claim 15: Jacobs discloses wherein the electromagnetic reflective coating includes an opening (208a, 208b), and the method further comprises: mounting a circuit board (“printed circuit boards” described in [0031]) including an antenna (210a, 210b) on a support structure (on a printed circuit board; see [0031]); and mounting the container on the support structure, in which the opening faces the antenna (208a/b faces 210a/b; see [0031], which discusses mounting the gas cell to a printed circuit board via flip chip bonding).
Claim 17: Jacobs discloses the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Jacobs further discloses that the cell may be made of “glass” (see [0025]), but does not explicitly disclose the glass as “borosilicate” as required by claim 17. However, Jacobs implies that borosilicate may be used as a glass for the gas cell in [0029], and the use of borosilicate specifically as the “glass” as broadly discussed would have been seen as both suitable and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have provided the gas cell as borosilicate, as discussed with regard to the second substrate of Jacobs, as a suitable glass material as broadly disclosed with regard to the cell material.
Claim 18: Jacobs discloses wherein the gas includes at least one of: water vapor ([0020], [0043]), acetonitrile ([0043]), cyanoacetylene (HC3N), ammonia (NH3), carbonyl sulfide (OCS), hydrogen cyanide ([0043]), or hydrogen sulfide (H2S).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19, 20, and 22 are allowed.
Claims 2-6, 12-14, and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: see paragraph 18 of the office action mailed 3/25/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose “filling a hollow structure with a gas or a vapor to a target purity level; sealing, subsequent to filling the hollow structure with the gas or the vapor to the target purity level, a portion of the hollow structure…”. Applicant points to [0035] of Jacobs.
However, it is the opinion of the examiner that Jacobs at least implies such a method step in [0049], which discloses an alternate example of filling the vapor cell by filling the cell in a low pressure environment then sealing the cell:
In further examples, the first and second substrates 202 and 206 are joined together by wafer bonding processing (e.g., FIG. 13 described hereinbelow) in a process chamber, with a controlled low-pressure environment to provide the dipolar molecule gas (e.g., H.sub.2O) in the cavity 203 during wafer bonding at a pressure of approximately 1 mbar or less. In some examples, the dipolar molecule gas is at a low pressure of approximately 0.1 mbar or less, and approximately 0.01 mbar or more inside the sealed interior of the cavity 203. Generally, the pressure can be tailored for a given design, where the transition width depends primarily on pressure broadening and Doppler broadening. The pressure broadening factor is linear with pressure, whereas the Doppler broadening is constant with pressure. Accordingly, at one desired pressure, further pressure reduction achieves no further transition frequency width reduction due to the Doppler effect, and further pressure reduction would reduce the magnitude of the peak transition, and the width will be the same, thereby degrading detection and transition tracking.
While Jacobs does not explicitly disclose the “target purity level”, such a target is at least implied by filling the cell in a “controlled, low-pressure environment” with a particular pressure of the dipolar gas. Furthermore, Ramirez discloses providing a “high purity”, e.g. a vapor of a predetermined target purity level to be considered “high”, in a similar vapor cell sealing method, as discussed in greater detail above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan Johnson whose telephone number is (571)270-1264. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Menna Youssef can be reached at 571-270-3684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights