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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because, the phrase, “The present invention provides”, in line 1 is unnecessary. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In each of claims 1-11, in order to maintain proper antecedent basis, “a glass substrate” and/or “a sealing member” should read, “ “the glass substrate” and/or “the sealing member”, as shown follows:
In claim 1, line 1, after “comprising”, “a glass” should read “the glass”;
In claim 1, line 2, “a sealing” should read, “the sealing”;
In each of claims 2-10, in line 1 (of each claim), “a sealing” should read, “the sealing”;
In claim 11, line 6, “a sealing” should read, “the sealing”;
In claim 11, line 7, “a sealing” should read, “the sealing”;
In claim 11, line 8, “a sealing” should read, “the sealing”;
In claim 11, line 9, “a glass” should read “the glass”;
In claim 11, line 13, “a sealing” should read, “the sealing”.
For the purpose of examination, claim 1-11 will be interpreted as suggested above.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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) 1-12 (all as interpreted) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiragami et al. (US 2019/0122945 A1; hereinafter, “Shiragami”) in view of Stark (US 2004/0104460 A1) and Tomoi (US 2010/0071823 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 12:
Shiragami discloses a glass substrate 11 (Fig. 2 and [0076]) with a sealing material layer 17 (Fig. 2 and [0077]), comprising the glass substrate and the sealing material layer formed on the glass substrate (and for claim 12, a hermetic package, comprising a glass substrate 11 and a package base 12 [0072] hermetically integrated with each other via a sealing material layer 17),
wherein the glass substrate has
wherein a difference in thermal expansion coefficient between the sealing material layer 17 and the glass substrate 11 in a temperature range of from 30°C to 300°C is 5 ppm/°C or less (see [0015] for temperature range and [0067], wherein a difference in thermal expansion coefficient is less than 40x10-7/°C, i.e., less than 4 ppm/°C).
Shiragami does not disclose the glass substrate having an average transmittance of 85% or more in a [wavelength] range from 250 nm to 300 nm; however, Shiragami discloses the glass substrate may be soda lime [0066].
Stark teaches, in a hermetic package similar to that of Shiragami, a glass substrate cover 304 (Fig. 3 and [0089]) can be made of soda-lime or quartz; and Tomoi teaches/shows it was very well known in the art that quartz glass has essentially no absorbance in a wavelength range of 280-400 nm (e.g., [0054], wherein the transmittance is essentially 100%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shiragami by specifically incorporating a quartz glass substrate because Stark teaches, in similar hermetic packages, either soda-lime glass or quartz is well suited for a hermitic cover, and Tomoi shows/teaches that quartz provides greater than 85% transmittance in a wavelength range of 250-300nm (e.g., in the ultraviolet, UV, range); accordingly, modifying Shiragami by incorporating a quartz substrate could provide a UV device useful for water treatment, especially because the quartz substrate would not significantly hinder UV necessary for treatment.
Regarding claims 2-11:
re claim 2, Shiragami shows (in Fig. 2) The glass substrate 11 with the sealing material layer 17 according to claim 1, wherein a ratio of an area in which the sealing material layer 17 is formed with respect to a surface of the glass substrate 11 on a side on which the sealing material layer 17 is formed is from 1% to 50% (in Fig. 2, a cross-sectional area of layer “17” on a cross-sectional surface of substrate ‘’11” is well within 1% to 50% a cross-sectional area of the substrate surface);
re claim 3, Stark shows (in Fig. 11) the sealing material layer has a plurality of sealing patterns, and wherein the sealing patterns each have a closed loop shape (i.e., a hermetically sealed package would require sealing material in a closed looped shape);
re claim 4, Shiragami discloses (in Fig. 2) the glass substrate 11 with the sealing material layer 17 according to claim 1, wherein the sealing material layer is a sintered body of composite powder containing at least bismuth-based glass powder and refractory filler powder [0041], and
wherein the sealing material layer has a content of bismuth-based glass of from 65 vol% to 95 vol% [0041] and a content of a refractory filler of from 5 vol% to 35 vol% [0041];
re claim 5, Shiragami discloses the glass substrate with the sealing material layer according to claim 1, wherein the sealing material layer is substantially free of a laser absorber (i.e., in TABLE 1, Shiragami discloses a laser absorber comprises only 7 vol %, which is considered to be a sealing material that is substantially free of the laser absorber);
re claim 6, Shiragami discloses the glass substrate with the sealing material layer according to claim 1,
wherein the sealing material layer has an average thickness of 15µm or less ([0056], e.g., 10µm or less) , and
wherein a value obtained by dividing the average thickness of the sealing material layer (e.g., 10µm) by a thickness of the glass substrate ([0067], e.g., 2mm or 2000µm) is from 0.005 to 0.5;
re claim 7, Shiragami discloses the glass substrate with the sealing material layer according to claim 1,
wherein the sealing material layer has an average width of 1,000 µm or less, and
wherein a value obtained by dividing an average thickness of the sealing material layer ([0085], last sentence, e.g., a thickness of 5µm) by the average width of the sealing material layer ([0085], last sentence, e.g., a width of 300µm) is from 0.005 to 0.1;
re claim 8, Shiragami discloses the glass substrate with the sealing material layer according to claim 1, wherein the glass substrate 11 has any shape of a rectangular shape (as viewed in Fig. 2), a circular shape, or a circular shape with an orientation flat;
re claim 9, Stark discloses the glass substrate 304 has an antireflection film [0092] formed on any one surface thereof (wherein the antireflective film improves light transmission, see Stark [0003]);
re claim 10, Shiragami discloses the glass substrate with the sealing material layer 17 according to claim 1, wherein the glass substrate 11 with a sealing material layer 17 is used for
sealing with laser light L/18 (Fig. and [0078]);
re claim 11, Shiragami discloses a method of producing a hermetic package, comprising the steps of:
preparing a package base 12 (Fig. 2 and [0076]);
preparing a glass substrate 11 with a sealing material layer 17 having a plurality of sealing patterns (e.g., on the left and right side of Fig. 2);
arranging the package base 12 and the glass substrate 11 with the sealing material layer 17 so that the package base and the glass substrate with the sealing material layer are laminated on each other through intermediation of the sealing material layer;
radiating laser light L (Fig. 2 and [0078]) from a glass substrate 11 side to allow the sealing material layer 17 to soften and deform, to thereby hermetically seal the glass substrate and the package base to provide a hermetic package
wherein the glass substrate with a sealing material layer is the glass substrate with a
sealing material layer of claim 1;
Although Shiragami does not disclose providing a hermetic package group, and dividing the hermetic package group to provide a plurality of hermetic packages; Shark teaches forming a hermetic package group (Fig. 27) and dividing the hermetic package group to provide a plurality of hermetic packages; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shiragami by forming a package group, as shown/taught by Stark, because the modification could significantly reduce manufacturing time and cost.
Therefore, Shiragami (in view of Stark and Tomoi) render claims 2-11 obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEX H MALSAWMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1903. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (4-12 Hours, between 5:30AM-10PM).
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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at 571-272-1736. 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.
/LEX H MALSAWMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892