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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Rejections of claims 8-10 as being indefinite are withdrawn in view of the present amendments,
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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202019101652 referred to as DE ‘652 herein after and cited in the machine translation provided herein and Soldera Microfabrication and Surface Functionalization of Soda Lime Glass through Direct Laser Interference Patterning provided by the Applicant and referred to as Soldera herein after.
Regarding claims 1, DE ‘652 discloses a method of improved direct laser interference processing DLIP (page 2 Background/ summary) comprising generating an interference pattern, that yields a plurality of furrows or grooves (page 2; summary, Page 4, paragraph 2) with laser radiation from a CO2 laser (Page 8; paragraph 7)
DE ‘652 discloses a surface being manipulated and suggests an optical element but does not specifically state the surface is a “glass surface” as required by claim 1.
In an analogous art of direct laser interference processing Soldera discloses a method of DLIP generating interference patterns on glass (Page 3; paragraphs 1-3), section 3.1 title. It would be obvious to pattern a glass surface as motivated for use as a microelectronic, photovolaics, optical components, biomedical devices as indicated in the Abstract of Soldera.
Regarding claims 2-3, DE ‘625 indicates the intensity maxima creates the furrows/grooves and thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the intensity maxima of the laser irradiation as motivated to achieve the desired patterning of the glass surface.
Regarding claims 4-5, Soldera clearly shows in Fig 1 and the description of Fig. 1 that DLIP has a moving glass in two directions (X, Y) (see arrows in Fig. 1a) and a beam path from the laser (Fig 1a) which eventually terminates on the glass surface Fig. 1 a
DE ‘625 further indicates the output radiation can be at an angle of 0-50 degrees with the surface thus moving the laser, radiation or surface relative to one another as motivated to achieve the desired application of radiation for the desired patterning.
Regarding claim 6, Soldera also suggests patterning borosilicate glass (Page 3; line 1). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to attempt a DLIP method on borosilicate glass as motivated to pattern the borosilicate glass.
Regarding claim 7, Soldera discloses Fig 1a of an apparatus with an XY stage capable of accommodating an object with a glass surface
And an optical arrangement of at least the DOE and/or prism and or lens being adapted to generate an interference pattern (Fig 1a and section 2.2) Soldera discloses the laser (Fig 1a) however does not specify the type.
DE ‘625 discloses a CO2 laser is suitable for DLIP processes thus it would be obvious for a skilled artisan to attempt a CO2 laser as the laser irradiation source in the apparatus of Soldera with obvious expectation of success of a functioning DLIP apparatus.
Regarding claims 8-9, the laser patterning taught by both DE ‘625 and Soldera are both considered to change the surface property of the glass by yielding dot or line like patterns (DE ‘625 citations in rejection of claim 1 and line-like or dot like textures Section 2.2 of Soldera). The patterning itself changes the friction, roughness, of the glass which are surface properties of the glass. Anti-fogging (an optical property), hydrophobic and hydrophilic by changing angle contact with liquid, self-cleaning and all of the other properties stated by Introduction in Soldera.
Regarding claim 10, at least patterning to yield microchannels (introduction Soldera) is considered an anisotropic change because they would yield different measurements from different angles, being a pattern of channels.
Claim(s) 1, 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EricT.daCosta et al. Fast production of microfluidic devices by CO2 laser engraving of wax-coated glass slides Electrophoresis 2016, 37, 1691–1695 as provided herein .
Regarding claim 1, da Costa discloses a method of generating an interference pattern of depression, or channels, on a glass surface with a CO2 laser:
channels of different dimensions can be fabricated without significantly cracking the surface of the glass (page 1692; column 2)
Regarding claims 7-8, Da costa necessarily provides something considered a receptacle, for supporting the glass and a CO2 laser with a lens system to put the laser beam on the surface of the glass as is known by a skilled artisan, to carryout the method of generating an interference pattern of depression, or channels, on a glass surface with a CO2 laser:
channels of different dimensions can be fabricated without significantly cracking the surface of the glass (page 1692; column 2)
it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a lens system to the laser as motivated to direct the beam with a desired power and spot size to the area desired on the glass as known by a skilled artisan.
Regarding claim 9, Da costa applies a liquid wax to a surface of the glass
The process is based on the use of paraffin wax, applied to dissipate the heat of the engraving process (page 1692; column 2)
Regarding claims 11-13, Da Costa discloses discloses straight channels or depressions and it would be obvious to modify the method of Da Costa as motivated to apply additional channels parallel to the method of creating a channel disclosed by Da Costa to yields the desired microfluid device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Examiner did not identify a reason why a skilled artisan would combine the teachings of DE ‘652 and Soldera would yield a predictable result.
Examiner disagrees.DE ‘652 disclosesDLIP on a surface of an optical element but does not specifically state the surface is a “glass surface” as required by claim 1.
Soldera discloses a method of DLIP generating interference patterns on glass (Page 3; paragraphs 1-3), section 3.1 title. It would be obvious to pattern a glass surface as motivated for use as an optical component as indicated by Soldera. Thus this above argument is moot.
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
