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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-19) in the reply filed on 10/10/25 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6, 7, and 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boureghda et al. (WO 2009/012450A1) (hereafter Boureghda).
A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
With respect to claim 1, Boureghda teaches a method for joining photonic (LED) components, the method comprising: suspending nano-particles in a medium (the carrier fluid/solvent of the nano ink/paste), wherein the nano-particles include metal nano-particles (paragraphs 22-23, 35, and 38-67); applying a layer of the medium (110) with the suspended nano-particles to a first substrate (110); exposing the layer of the medium to a thermal process to remove at least a portion of the medium and expose the nano-particles (abstract; paragraphs 6-7, 11, 21, 23, 30, 32, and 43) (note that heating up to 300°C will intrinsically remove at least a portion of the carrier fluid/solvent of the nano ink/paste); placing a second substrate (120) on the nano-particles (110) in alignment with the first substrate (100); and causing application of heat to the nano-particles to cause connection of contact points between adjacent nano-particles to secure alignment of the first substrate and the second substrate, wherein the heat applied to the nano-particles is less than 300°C (abstract; paragraphs 6-7, 11, 21, 23, and 43).
With respect to claim 2, Boureghda teaches wherein at least one of the first substrate and the second substrate is one of a glass substrate, a silicon substrate, or a ceramic substrate (paragraphs 23 and 32).
With respect to claim 4, Boureghda teaches wherein the heat applied to the nano-particles is less than 250°C (abstract; paragraphs 6-7, 11, 21, 23, and 43).
With respect to claim 6, Boureghda teaches wherein the heat is applied to the nano-particles until partial sintering occurs (paragraphs 32, 36, and 42-46).
With respect to claim 7, since the process of Boureghda uses the same nano-particle compositions with the same heating temperature range, it is the examiner’s position that the heating process of Boureghda will intrinsically cause contact points between adjacent nano-particles to engage in particle necking. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02.
With respect to claim 9, Boureghda teaches wherein the thermal process is one of oven heating, laser heating, microwave heating, RF heating, infrared heating, visible light heating, ultraviolet heating, or Joule heating (paragraph 46).
With respect to claim 10, Boureghda teaches wherein the nano-particles comprise at least one of nano-copper, nano-silver, or nano-gold (paragraphs 22-23, 35, and 49-67).
With respect to claim 11, Boureghda teaches wherein the application of heat to the nano-particles is via either oven heating, laser heating, microwave heating, RF heating, infrared heating, visible light heating, ultraviolet heating, or Joule heating (paragraph 46).
With respect to claim 12, Boureghda teaches wherein the medium comprises a solvent-based slurry, a paste, an ink, or a liquid solvent (paragraph 22-23 and 49-67).
With respect to claim 13, Boureghda teaches wherein the layer of the medium with the suspended nano-particles is applied to the first substrate by screen printing, three-dimensional printing, transfer printing, aerosol spraying, or doctor blade application (paragraphs 22 and 38).
With respect to claim 14, Boureghda teaches wherein the medium (nanomaterial) comprises one or more filler particles (nanoparticles) that each have a maximum height smaller than a desired gap thickness between the first substrate and the second substrate, wherein the one or more filler particles can each be a nano-particle or other material formed with a specific diameter (paragraph 39).
With respect to claim 15, Boureghda teaches wherein the heated nano-particles form partially sintered nano-particles, and wherein the method further comprises: disposing an adhesive (capping agent) about the partially sintered nano-particles between the first substrate and the second substrate (paragraphs 23 and 26-31).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boureghda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Karam (CN-108778695A) (Karam).
With respect to claim 3, Boureghda does not teach wherein at least one of the first substrate and the second substrate is one of a precision flat fusion glass or a precision V-groove substrate.
However, Karam teaches bonding very flat glass having a roughness less than 200nm Ra with a nanopaste (machine translation).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a very flat glass as taught by Karam in the process of Boureghda in order to ensure that the surfaces to be bonded have close contact and form a strong bond.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boureghda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Karam (CN-108778695A) (Karam).
With respect to claim 5, Boureghda does not teach wherein the heat applied to the nano-particles is for less than 2 seconds.
However, Karam teaches bonding with a nanopaste wherein the heat applied to the nano-particles is for less than 2 seconds (paragraph 108).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the bonding speed of Ghoshal in the process of Boureghda in order to increase productivity and prevent thermal degradation.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boureghda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Karam et al. (US 2019/0177219A1) (hereafter Karam ‘219).
With respect to claim 16, Boureghda does not teach aligning the second substrate relative to the first substrate with a third substrate.
However, Karam ‘219 teaches aligning the second substrate relative to the first substrate with a third substrate (figure 15; and paragraphs 27 and 70-73).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the third substrate o Karam ‘219 in the process of Boureghda in order to form a glazing of the desired configuration.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 17-19 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KILEY SHAWN STONER whose telephone number is (571)272-1183. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday.
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, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KILEY S STONER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735