DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “208” has been used to designate both “the substrate support surface” and “the water” in Fig. 2 (See Fig. 2 vs Fig. 3).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohme (US 2016/0280580A1) in view of Hackert et al. (US 2018/0057390A1 – hereinafter Hackert) and Obata et al. (JP2001-089176A – hereinafter Obata).
For the Obata reference, the Examiner is referencing pages of the attached English machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Bohme (title, abstract, and Figures) discloses a method of cutting out contours from substrates by means of a laser. Bohme discloses a laser beam produces a large number of individual zones of internal damage produced in the substrate material. Bohme ([0001[) discloses a method of cutting out contours from glass substrates by means of a laser. Bohme (Figs. 2-4 and [0103]) discloses individual focal lines 5-1, 5-2, . . . positioned along a contour line that induces crack formation in the substrate and (Figs. 1-3) illustrates a substrate having a first surface and second surface opposing the first surface, and Bohme ([0055]) discloses forming zones of internal damage, i.e. crack line formation that extends vertically into the material. Bohme ([0008]) discloses the method comprising a contour definition step (a), optional crack definition step (b), optional stress-relieving step (c), and the material removal-and/or material deformation step (d). Bohme ([0061]-[0062]) discloses the final separation (i.e. step (d)) along the produced contour by introduction of forces, e.g. mechanical or thermal (non-uniform heating/cooling) and in step (d) (i.e. material removal) performed by a laser beam and ([0057]) discloses removal of portions of the contour by a laser beam along the contour line. Additionally, Bohme ([0082]) discloses it can be advantageous for the final separation of the contour to supply moisture to the substrate after introduction of the large number of zones of internal damage. Bohme discloses as a result of capillary forces, water is drawn into the damage zones and can induce stresses by means of linking up with open bonds in the glass structures which stresses help finally to form a crack. Hence controlled supply of the cut contours with water is possible, the impingement being able to be effected during or after laser machining. Bohme discloses use of a moist substrate mounting or receiving means is possible, and a water reservoir can be provided in the region of the contour line to be introduced. Accordingly, based on the disclosures by Bohme above, Bohme discloses a method comprising a glass material having a first surface and a second surface, a second surface opposing the first surface comprising a plurality of damage zones (corresponding to a plurality of perforations) formed within the glass material along a contour line (i.e. cutting line), water entering into the plurality of perforations via capillary action, and controlled supply of water is possible during laser machining, which includes laser separating by thermal forces, and therefore, the methods taught by Bohme provide for applying a laser with water within the plurality of perforations where the water may be applied by a moist substrate mounting or receiving means or a water reservoir provided in the region of the contour line to be introduced in a laser separation step (corresponding to a step applying a laser).
As discussed above, Bohme provides for a plurality of perforations (i.e. cracks) that extend vertically into the material and where water enters into the plurality of perforations via capillary action. Bohme fails to disclose the plurality of perforations extends through the thickness of the material. However, Hackert (title, [0010] and Figs. 1A-1C) teaches forming damage tracks by a laser into a glass substrate for cutting, which is similar to the perforations (i.e. cracks/damage) that extend vertically disclosed by Bohme. Hackert teaches ([0044]) the damage tracks) can penetrate the full depth of the glass. Both Bohme and Hackert teach perforations (i.e. damage) extending vertically within the substrate. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Hackert, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in the method of cutting a glass substrate with a plurality of perforations that extend vertically within the glass material of Bohme, the plurality of perforations could extend vertically through a thickness of the glass substrate, since it is known in the prior art that damage zones formed in a glass substrate for cutting that extends vertically through the thickness of the glass substrate. The combination of Bohme and Hackert are merely combining prior art elements, specifically formation of perforations that extend vertically through a glass substrate for cutting, to yield predictable results in cutting glass.
As discussed above, Bohme discloses water entering into the plurality of perforations via capillary action, and controlled supply of water is possible during application of the laser, such as laser separating, and therefore provides for applying a laser with water within the plurality of perforations where the water may be applied by a moist substrate mounting or receiving means or a water reservoir provided in the region of the contour line to be introduced in a laser separation step (corresponding to a step applying a laser). Bohme fails to disclose details of applying the water, such as applying a layer of water to a top surface of a substrate support surface and the positioning the glass material onto the substrate support surface. However, Obata (abstract and Figs. 2-3) discloses a method of cutting a base plate comprising a supporting stand 31 in which grooves 33 are formed at its surface 32a and elastic members 34 containing water are installed on the grooves 33 to project from the surface 32a and during cutting the elastic member is pressed by the weight of the base plate such that main surfaces of the base plate is wet by the water oozing from the elastic member 34. Obata (pg. 4) teaches the substrate is processed in a state where one principal surface of the substrate is wet by the elastic member. Both Bohme and Obata teach moist substrate mounting/support and water reservoirs for supply of water to a substrate. Accordingly, based on the combined teachings of Bohme and Obata, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in the method of Bohme where a moist substrate mounting or receiving means or a water reservoir providing in the region of the contour line to supply water within the plurality of perforations during laser separating, could be provided by a known prior art support stand that provides for supplying of water to main surface of a substrate, such as the supporting stand comprising water reservoirs and elastic members 34 at the surface, as taught by Obata. Additionally, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with the application of the support surface taught by Obata, to position the glass material onto the substrate support surface in order to provide for the weight required for applying a layer of water to a top surface of the substrate support surface in order to provide a supply of water that enters the into the plurality of perforations via capillary action in the method of Bohme in view of Hackert. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the combination of Bohme in view of Hackert and Obata provides for a substrate support surface applying a laser of water to a top surface of a substrate surface, positioning of the glass material onto the support surface, the glass material comprising the claimed first and second surface and the claimed plurality of perforations formed within the glass material along the cutting line, water entering the plurality of perforations via capillary action, and applying a laser to the glass material having water within the plurality of perforations along the cutting line.
As stated above, the modified method of Bohme provides for applying a laser to the glass material having water within the plurality of perforations along the cutting line for separation of the contour, and also discussed above Bohme teaches separation achieved by thermal non uniform heating. Bohme fails to explicitly state applying the laser to the glass material for separating (i.e. thermal non uniform heating forces for separation) to expand the water within the plurality of perforations during laser separation of the material. However, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in the application of the laser during separating of the contour where the glass substrate has water within the plurality of perforations along the cutting line that the thermal forces (i.e. non uniform heating) to aid in the separating (discussed above) would provide for heating along the plurality of perforations having water would also include heating and expanding of water within the plurality of perforations to separate the material. The combination of Bohme in view of Hackert and Obata is merely combining known prior art elements to yield the predictable result of providing a substrate support surface having a supply of water, as taught by Obata, to provide a supply of water during laser separating in the plurality of perforations via capillary action, as taught by Bohme in view of Hackert.
Regarding claims 2-3, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Bohme (Fig. 4 and [0103]) discloses individual focal lines 5-1, 5-2, . . .along the contour line that induces crack formation in the thickness of the substrate along damage zones. Additionally, Hackert ([0055]) teaches defect lines separated by a distance ranging from 0.1 microns and les than or equal to 20 microns, between 0.5 and 15 microns, or between 3 and 10 microns. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, each of the perforations, in the modified method of Bohme in claim 1, as having a first distance from an adjacent perforation, as claimed in claim 2, and wherein the first distance ranges from 0.5 microns to 15 microns, which is significantly overlaps Applicant’s claimed range of about 1 micron to about 15 microns, as claimed in claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Bohme ([0103]) discloses moving the laser beam over the surface of the substrate. Hackert ([0052]) also teaches defect lines and curved fault lines or contours produced by translating either the laser beam or the workpiece. Accordingly, based on the teachings by Bohme and Hackert that there is translating of the laser beam or workpiece to apply the laser, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art the method further comprising translating one of the glass material or the laser to apply the laser to the plurality of perforations.
Regarding claim 5, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Obata (Figs. 2-3) teaches elastic member 34 on the top surface of a substrate support. Additionally, Obata (pg. 7) teaches the elastic member 34 as a water-absorbing porous polymer material, such as a sponge. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in the modified method of Bohme in claim 1, the top surface of a substrate surface is a porous material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-1623. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: EST 6:00am-3:00pm.
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 Hindenlang 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.
/LISA L HERRING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741