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 .
Specification
The objections to the disclosure are withdrawn in view of the amendments filed 10/13/2025.
.Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino et al. (US 20200381303) and Hackert et al. (US 20180057390) and further in view of Bohme (US 20160280580).
Regarding claim 1, Hoshino discloses a method of laser processing a glass material, comprising:
forming a plurality of perforations, or cracks (16/18) [0059]-[0063], within the glass material along a cutting line (14) with a pulsed laser beam [0121]-[0122],
the material comprises a first surface (4) and a second surface (6) opposing the first surface, wherein the perforation (18)
the perforations (18) extend through a thickness of the material from the first surface to the second surface, and each perforation is a first distance from an adjacent perforation as depicted in Fig 3-6. The present claim does not require the perforations to extend completely from the first surface to the second surface over the entirety of the thickness of the glass material, thus given the broadest reasonable interpretation the perforations (16/18) extend through a thickness of the material [0122]-[0127].
Hoshino discloses a first crack is formed between adjacent perforations [0145];
applying liquid medium of water to the cutting line [0133]-[0134];
the water seeps into the cracks [0135]-[0136] and the water the H2O molecules will bond with the exposed glass oxides, such as silica, in the damages and cause stresses and a chemical change. Hoshino discloses cooling the water to freeze, cause a solid phase, thus considered a physical change and mechanical force to the glass material at the cutting line to separate the material [0137].
Alternatively, In an analogous art of laser processing a glass material (abstract) [0037]-[0039], Hackert discloses forming a plurality of defect lines (120), or perforations, within the glass material along a cutting line, or fault line [0041]-[0043], [0052] Fig 1A-1C wherein the material (120) comprises a first surface and a second surface opposing the first surface: (Fig 1A), wherein the perforation extends through an entirety of the thickness of the material from the first surface to the second surface: (Fig 1A) the defect lines 120 extend through the surface [0052]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the method of Hoshino with the defects of Hackert with the expected result of the expansion of water connecting said defect lines and fully separating the substrate.
Neither Hoshino or Hackert disclose how the water is provided to the substrate.
In an analogous art of cutting a glass substrate, Bohme discloses an evaporator, considered a humidifier via the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, for providing water molecules to be sucked into damage zones via capillary forces into the damage zones to yield a separation crack [0082]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hoshino as motivated to provide water molecules to the glass perforations.
Regarding claim 3, Hackert discloses the distance between perforations 1-15 microns [0006]
Regarding claim 5-6, Hoshino discloses applying water to the cutting line after formation of the plurality of perforations to expand the first crack by solidifying the liquid medium [0134]-[0137].
Claim(s) 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohme (US 20160280580).
Regarding claims 1-2, Bohme discloses a method of laser processing a glass material [0001], comprising:
forming a plurality of, individual internal damage zones, or perforations, within the glass material along a contour line, or cutting line, [0045]
the material comprises a first surface and a second surface opposing the first surface as depicted in Fig 2,
the perforation extends through a thickness of the material from the first surface to the second surface Fig 2- can extend through thickness [0018], [0011]-[0012] given the broadest reasonable interpretation, and wherein
a first crack is formed between adjacent perforations: lateral crack zone [0058];
applying water to the cutting line [0082] during the final separation Bohme providing water molecules via an evaporator, considered a humidifier via the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, to be sucked into damage zones via capillary forces into the damage zones to yield a separation crack [0082].
providing a secondary laser causing thermal stress during full separation [0065]
Regarding claims 4-7, Bohme suggests applying water during the final separation or effected during or after laser machining [0082].
Alternatively, MPEP 2144.04 states:
Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results
It would be obvious to apply the water before or after the creation of the perforations absent any unexpected results.
Regarding claim 3, Bohme gives an example of a 3.5 or 5 micron spacing [0074]/[0075] which overlap with the claimed range. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
Regarding claims 8-9, Bohme discloses a method of laser processing a glass material [0001], comprising:
forming a plurality of, individual internal damage zones, or perforations, within the glass material along a contour line, or cutting line, [0045]
the material comprises a first surface and a second surface opposing the first surface as depicted in Fig 2,
the perforation extends through a thickness of the material from the first surface to the second surface Fig 2- can extend through thickness [0018], [0011]-[0012] given the broadest reasonable interpretation, and wherein
a first crack is formed between adjacent perforations: lateral crack zone [0058];
applying water to the cutting line [0082] during the final separation; and
providing a secondary laser causing thermal stress during full separation [0065]
the only difference of claim 8 is the identification of
A first process chamber where the perforations are formed, a second process chamber where water is applied and a third process chamber where chemical or mechanical energy is applied.
All of the active steps of the method of claim 8 are made obvious as indicated above. Claim 8 does not require the process chambers in a particular location or any location relative to one another. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 8 any area in which these steps occur may be considered a process chamber.
Regarding claim 10, Bohme gives an example of a 3.5 or 5 micron spacing [0074]/[0075] which overlap with the claimed range. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
Regarding claims 11-13, It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to apply water both before and after creating the plurality of perforations (see the rejection of claim 8 above). The area of water application is considered the second chamber and where perforations are formed is considered a first chamber thus where the water may be applied in any order before or after the perforations the limitations of claims 11-13 are met.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hackert et al. (US 20180057390) and Geerlings et al. (US 10131016) and Bohme (US 20160280580).
Regarding claims 1-2, Hackert discloses a method of laser processing a glass material (abstract) [0037]-[0039], comprising:
forming a plurality of defect lines (120), or perforations, within the glass material along a cutting line, or fault line [0041]-[0043], [0052] Fig 1A-1C wherein
the material (120) comprises a first surface and a second surface opposing the first surface: (Fig 1A), wherein
the perforation extends through a thickness of the material from the first surface to the second surface: (Fig 1A) the defect lines 120 extend through the surface [0052], and wherein
Hackert indicates the plurality of defects alone can induce self-separation [0052] however a secondary step of heating or cooling or mechanical force needed to completely separate along fault line [0053], thus the fault line needing the secondary step yields the claimed, first crack formed between at least some adjacent perforations.
Hackert does indicate applying mechanical force [0053]
Hackert does not discuss applying water to the cutting line
In an analogous art of laser processing glass (Col 2; line 51, Fig 1-2) Geerlings discloses providing spaced apart laser induced channels along a line of separation (Col 3; lines 41-51, 55-56). Geerlings recognizes a problem with laser-induced channels on substrates are at least partially transparent to the wavelength of the laser can have substrate damage and eventually cause energy loss thus requiring higher power intensity (Col 7; lines 30-35). Geerlings aims to solve this problem by adding a buffer layer (140) that can reduce energy loss (Col 7; lines 40-44). Geerlings suggest a buffer material of water for a glass substrate (Col 8; lines 21-23).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Hackert with water application to the glass as motivated to provide a buffer layer and prevent energy loss from the laser.
In an analogous art of cutting a glass substrate, Bohme discloses an evaporator, considered a humidifier via the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, for providing water molecules to be sucked into damage zones via capillary forces into the damage zones to yield a separation crack [0082]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hackert and Geerlings as motivated to provide water molecules to the glass substrate.
Regarding claim 3, Hackert discloses the distance between perforations 1-15 microns [0006]
Regarding claim 4, the combined teaching of Hackert and Geerlings yields applying water to the cutting line prior to formation of the plurality of perforations.
Regarding claim 6, the combined teaching of Hackert and Geerlings yields applying water to the cutting line prior to applying one of chemical, the suggested secondary laser of Hackert would evaporate the water and reduce OH content, alternatively Hackert suggests mechanical energy to the glass material at the cutting line to separate the material [0052]-[0053].
Regarding claims 8-9, Hackert discloses a method of laser processing a glass material (abstract) [0037]-[0039], comprising:
forming a plurality of defect lines (120), or perforations, within the glass material along a cutting line, or fault line [0041]-[0043], [0052] Fig 1A-1C wherein
the material (120) comprises a first surface and a second surface opposing the first surface: (Fig 1A), wherein
the perforation extends through a thickness of the material from the first surface to the second surface: (Fig 1A) the defect lines 120 extend through the surface [0052], and wherein
Hackert indicates the plurality of defects alone can induce self-separation [0052] however a secondary step of heating or cooling or mechanical force needed to completely separate along fault line [0053], thus the fault line needing the secondary step yields the claimed, first crack formed between at least some adjacent perforations.
Hackert does indicate applying mechanical force [0053]
Hackert does not discuss applying water to the cutting line
In an analogous art of laser processing glass (Col 2; line 51, Fig 1-2) Geerlings discloses providing spaced apart laser induced channels along a line of separation (Col 3; lines 41-51, 55-56). Geerlings recognizes a problem with laser-induced channels on substrates are at least partially transparent to the wavelength of the laser can have substrate damage and eventually cause energy loss thus requiring higher power intensity (Col 7; lines 30-35). Geerlings aims to solve this problem by adding a buffer layer (140) that can reduce energy loss (Col 7; lines 40-44). Geerlings suggest a buffer material of water for a glass substrate (Col 8; lines 21-23).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Hackert with water application to the glass as motivated to provide a buffer layer and prevent energy loss from the laser.
the only difference of claim 8 is the identification of
A first process chamber where the perforations are formed, a second process chamber where water is applied and a third process chamber where chemical or mechanical energy is applied.
All of the active steps of the method of claim 8 are made obvious as indicated above. Claim 8 does not require the process chambers in a particular location or any location relative to one another. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 8 any order in which these steps occur may be considered a process chamber.
Regarding claim 10, Hackert discloses the distance between perforations 1-15 microns [0006]
Claim(s) 7 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hackert et al. (US 20180057390) and Geerlings et al. (US 10131016) as applied above and further in view of Hoshino et al. (US 20200381303) and as evidenced by Bohme (US 20160280580).
Regarding claim 7, Hackert discloses laser separation of glass with a plurality of perforations along a fault line where the plurality of perforations form a fault line and adjacent perforations along the fault line connect to form said claimed first crack where a secondary step of mechanical force is needed to fully separate the glass along the fault line [0052]-[0053] of Hackert, Geerlings makes obvious applying a buffer layer of water on the glass prior to the perforation step. The water seeps into the cracks [0135]-[0136] and the water the H2O molecules will bond with the exposed glass oxides, such as silica, in the damages and cause stresses and a chemical change and expand the crack
The combined teachings of Hackert and Geerlings do not discuss applying water to the cutting line prior to formation of the plurality of perforations to expand the first crack to fully separate the material.
In an analogous art Hoshino discloses a first crack is formed between adjacent perforations [0145] and applying liquid medium of water, thus water molecules [0133]-[0134]; which seeps into the cracks [0135]-[0136] and cooling the water to freeze, cause a solid phase, thus considered a physical change and mechanical force to the glass material at the cutting line to separate the material [0137]. Water will seep into the cracks water the H2O molecules will bond with the exposed glass oxides, such as silica, in the damages and cause stresses, a chemical change and expansion of the first crack evidenced by Bohme [0082].
Hackert suggests a secondary step of mechanical force or bulk cooling to fully separate the glass along the fault line [0053] thus it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to apply water to the fault line, or first crack, and cool taught by Hoshino as motivated to yield full separation of the glass.
Regarding claims 11-13, It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to apply water both before and after creating the plurality of perforations (see the rejection of claim 7 above). The are of water application is considered the second chamber and where perforations are formed is considered a first chamber thus meeting both claims 11-12.
Furthermore, Bohme discloses an evaporator, considered a humidifier via the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, for providing water molecules to the substrate [0082].
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1- 6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of copending Application No. 18505608 in view of and further in view of Bohme (US 20160280580).
Claim 1 of the present application requires:
A method of laser processing a glass material, comprising:
forming a plurality of perforations within the glass material along a cutting line, wherein the material comprises a first surface and a second surface opposing the first surface, wherein the perforation extends through a thickness of the material from the first surface to the second surface, and wherein a first crack is formed between adjacent perforations; applying water to the cutting line via a humidifier device; and applying one of chemical or mechanical energy to the glass material at the cutting line to separate the material.
further comprising applying water molecules of a generated water molecules to the cutting line prior to formation of the plurality of perforations.
applying water to the cutting line prior to applying one of chemical or mechanical energy to the glass material at the cutting line to separate the material.
Claim 1 of copending Application No. 18505608 recites
A method of laser processing a glass material, comprising:
applying a layer of water to a top surface of a substrate support surface; positioning the glass material onto the substrate support surface, wherein the glass material comprises: a first surface, a second surface opposing the first surface, a plurality of perforations formed within the glass material along a cutting line, wherein the plurality of perforations extends through a thickness of the material from the first surface to the second surface, wherein the water enters into the plurality of perforations via capillary action; and applying a laser to the glass material at the cutting line to expand the water within the plurality of perforations to separate the material.
The only difference between claim 1 of the present application and claim 1 of copending Application No. 18505608
Is generating water molecules by a humidifier device to the cutting line
In an analogous art of cutting a glass substrate, Bohme discloses an evaporator, considered a humidifier via the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, for providing water molecules to be sucked into damage zones via capillary forces into the damage zones to yield a separation crack [0082]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the copending application as motivated to provide water molecules to the glass perforations.
Claims 2-4 of the present application and the copending application are the same respectively.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant does argue Bohme discloses moisture applied to the cutting line. Applicant argues Bohme does not disclose a humidifier device.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. There is no requirement that prior art, Bohme must use the same words to describe a claim element (humidifier) in order to be deemed as teaching or disclosing that claim element. “[T]he reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.¢., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Prior art reference must be “considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). As such, it 1s not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. KSR Int’/ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an “expansive and flexible” approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a “predictable variation” of “prior art elements according to their established functions.” /d. at 415, 417. Here, in contrast to that approach, Applicant’s arguments rigidly focus on a narrow reading of Kashima, without taking full account of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s “knowledge, creativity, and common sense.” Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013). An evaporator to supply water molecules is a type of humidifier.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JODI COHEN FRANKLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3966. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am-4 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, Alison Hindelang can be reached at (571) 270-7001. 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.
JODI COHEN FRANKLIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741