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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 14, 2026 has been entered.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner acknowledges the amendment of claim 1. Claims 1 – 5, 7 – 10, & 12 – 15 are examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 – 2, 6 – 9 & 11 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bornstein et al. (US 2015/0198838 A1), in view of Garner et al. (US 2012/0040146 A1) and Uemura et al. (US 2015/0030816 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Bornstein et al. teach methods of strengthening the edge surfaces of glass substrates (12 & 14), and particularly glass substrates contained within a display panel (10) (Applicant’s “glass substrate” and “substrate”) (paragraph [0003]) comprising a first surface, a second surface and an edge (32 & 34 of Fig. 2). The edge surfaces (of the glass substrate) (32a – 32d & 34a – 34d) may be protected by applying an edge surface coating (78) (i.e., “protecting device) using whatever edge coating material best meets the need for the particular application, typically a polymer coating material. The edge surface coating thickness may be in a range from about 50 – 75 µm (paragraph [0082] & Figs. 11D – 11D, 12B).
PNG
media_image1.png
308
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
312
254
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bornstein et al. teach the protecting device comprises a polymer layer (paragraph [0082]), but do not explicitly teach the polymer layer has a total transmittance is equal to or greater than 87% based on a thickness of 20 µm. Furthermore, Bornstein et al. teach the protective device comprises a polymer layer (i.e., “protective device) (paragraph [0082]), but do not teach the polymer layer having a total transmittance equal to or greater than 87% based on a thickness of 20 µm and a pencil hardness of at least HB as measured according to ASTM D3363, has an elastic modulus of 1.8 MPa to 4 mPa, and a dielectric constant of 2 to 4 at 100 kHz.
Garner et al. teach thin glass substrates having mechanically durable edges formed by a polymeric edge coating. The polymeric edge coating (120) that prevents the creation of strength limiting defects along the edges of a glass substrate (abstract). Examples of the polymeric edge coating include UV curable optical adhesives, such as a siloxane-based polymer of Sylgard 184 (paragraph [0054]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Garner et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to use a polysiloxane-based UV curable optical adhesive, such as Sylgard 184, as the polymeric edge coating of the glass substrate taught by Bornstein et al. in order to limit defects the edge of said glass substrate.
Applicant’s preferred embodiment of their protective device is also Sylgard 184 (see specification, paragraph [0096). One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the same protective polymeric edge coating material and thickness (see discussion of claim 1 above) taught by both the prior art and Applicant’s preferred embodiment to have the same properties, such as a total transmittance of equal to or greater than 87%, an adhesive strength of 5B according to ASTM D3359, damage of the glass substrate of the substrate is not substantial when impact with a pressure of approximately 1.1 bar is added 3x – 50x to the protecting device to be directly contacted with a pin having a section that corresponds with a second of the groove part, and a pencil hardness of HB or greater according to ASTM D3363, an elastic modulus of 1.8 MPa to 4 MPa, and a dielectric constant of 2 to 4 at 100 kHz.
It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Bornstein et al. do not teach the protecting device is extended by 10 µm to 500 µm into at least one area among the first surface and the second surface connected to the edge area.
Uemura et al. teach a reinforced glass article comprising a glass sheet (10) (i.e., “glass substrate”) comprising a first surface, a second surface, and an edge area configured to connect the first and second surfaces, as well as a protective layer (40) (i.e., “protecting device”) disposed on at least a portion of the edge area. Fig. 1 shown below discloses the protective layer is extended by length “X” onto (“into”) at least one area among the first surface or second surface connected to the edge area (Fig. 1). X is in the range of 10 µm to 200 µm (paragraphs [0036] – [0037] & [0115] – [0117]), which is within Applicant’s claimed range of 10 – 500 µm. The range of X is preferred to prevent abraded edge strength from decreasing, enhance adhesion between the glass sheet and the protective layer is due to an increase in the contact area therebetween, and preventing deterioration of the external appearance (paragraph [0117]).
PNG
media_image3.png
336
502
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Uemera et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to extend the polymer layer taught by Bornstein et al. by length a length of 10 – 200 µm onto (“into”) at least one area among the first surface or second surface connected to the edge area in order to prevent an abraded edge strength from decreasing, enhance adhesion between the glass sheet and the polymer layer is due to an increase in the contact area therebetween, and to prevent deterioration of the external appearance.
With regard to claim 2, Bornstein et al. teach the edge surfaces may comprise a curved or beveled portion (i.e., “a groove part”) (paragraph [0052]). Bornstein et al. do not teach the beveled portion extends to the first and second surface.
However, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to form the beveled portion along the entire thickness of the edge surface (i.e., Applicant’s “groove part that penetrates the first and second surface toward an inner portion of the glass substrate”) (paragraph [0052]).
Bornstein et al. do not explicitly teach the protective coating is disposed in the beveled (groove) part.
However, as discussed above for claim 1, Bornstein et al. teach a protective coating applied to each of the edge surfaces, if desired (paragraph [0084]). Bornstein et al. also teach the application of an edge surface coating using an applicator pad is not dependent on edge surface profiles or glass shape, and thus an applicator pad will work for different edge surface profiles and glass shapes (paragraph [0082]). For example, the applicator pad can be “stepped” to coat recessed edge surface 34d of the second glass substrate (paragraph [0085]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Bornstein et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to dispose the protective coating to the entire surface of the beveled (groove) part of the glass substrate for providing adequate protection to the entire substrate edge.
With regard to claim 7, Bornstein et al. do not explicitly teach the polymer layer is an elastic layer, and wherein the adhesive strength between the protecting device and the glass substrate is 5B according to ASTM D3359.
However, as discussed above for claim 1, Garner et al. teach a similar polymeric edge coating (protecting device disposed on at least a portion of the edge area). Therefore, the substrate taught by the combination of Bornstein et al. and Garner et al. inherently has the same impact protection properties, such as adhesive strength between the protecting device (edge coating) and the glass substrate is 5B according to ASTM D3359.
With regard to claim 8, Bornstein et al. do not explicitly teach damage of the glass substrate of the substrate is not substantial when impact with a pressure of approximately 1.1 bar is added three times (3x) to the protecting device to be directly contacted with a pin having a section that corresponds with a second of the groove part.
However, as discussed above for claim 1, Garner et al. teach a similar polymeric edge coating (protecting device disposed on at least a portion of the edge area). Therefore, the substrate taught by the combination of Bornstein et al. and Garner et al. inherently has the same impact protection properties, such as a glass substrate that will not have substantial damage when impacted with a pressure of ~1,1 bar is added three times (3x) to the protecting device (edge coating) to be directly contact with a pin having a section that corresponds with a section of the groove part.
With regard to claim 9, Bornstein et al. do not explicitly teach damage of the glass substrate of the substrate is not substantial when impact with a pressure of approximately 1.1 bar is added fifty times (50x) to the protecting device to be directly contacted with a pin having a section that corresponds with a second of the groove part.
However, as discussed above for claim 1, Garner et al. teach a similar polymeric edge coating (protecting device disposed on at least a portion of the edge area). Therefore, the substrate taught by the combination of Bornstein et al. and Garner et al. inherently has the same impact protection properties, such as a glass substrate that will not have substantial damage when impacted with a pressure of ~1,1 bar is added fifty times to the protecting device (edge coating) to be directly contact with a pin having a section that corresponds with a section of the groove part.
With regard to claim 12, Bornstein et al. teach the edge surface coating is a UV curable material (paragraph [0084]).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bornstein et al., Garner et al., & Uemura et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Urruti (U.S. Patent No. 9,130,016 B2).
With regard to claim 3, Bornstein et al. teach the glass substrate is configured to have a shape of a rectangle (i.e., “quadrangle” (paragraph [0052]). Electrically conducting terminal members (14) (Applicant’s “electrically conductive portion in at least a portion of the glass substrate”) position on the terminal portion of a first glass substrate (paragraph [0007), wherein the terminal members comprise electrical terminal elements (42) (paragraph [0053], Figs. 2 & 7). Furthermore, second major surface (22) of first glass substrate (12) may include an electrically functional layer (28) deposited thereon (Applicant’s “electrically conductive portion in at least a portion of the glass substrate”, Figs. 3 & 6), which may include one or more layers of silicon, metal and/or metal oxides (e.g., film transistors) (paragraph [0051]).
Bornstein et al. do not explicitly teach the glass substrate comprises through vias that penetrates from the first surface to the second surface.
Urruti teaches a method of manufacturing through-glass vias in a glass substrate for 3D microelectronic and MEMS structures. Through-glass vias in a glass substrate are used as electrical interconnects between the front side and back side of the substrates or wafers of the 3D structure (Col. 1, Lines 39 – 53).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Urruti, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form through vias that penetrate the first surface and the second surface of the glass substrate taught by Bornstein for providing electrical interconnects between the first surface and the second surface of 3D microelectronic structures.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bornstein et al., Garner et al., & Uemura et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mitsuharu (JP H09286638 A).
With regard to claim 4, Bornstein et al. do not teach the protecting layer (device) comprises a first protecting layer (device) and a second protecting layer (device) which are distinct from each other, the first protecting device is disposed in an edge area in contact with a first side of the first surface, the second protecting device is disposed in an edge area in contact with a second side of the first surface, and the first side and the second side oppose each other.
Mitsuharu teaches a plate glass (1) comprising opposing chamfered peripheral edge portions (2 & 3) and first edge protector (4) and second edge protector (5) (i.e., “first protecting device” and “second protecting device”) that are distinct from each other (Fig. 1), such that the edge protectors face each other and are in contact with a first side of a first surface and a second side of a first surface where strong external force is expected to be applied (paragraph [0012] & Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image4.png
602
272
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
274
144
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Mitsuharu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form a plurality of distinct edge layers along different regions of the glass substrate edge, such as facing each other, based on where external forces are expected to be applied to the edge of the glass substrate taught by Kashiwabara et al.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bornstein et al., Garner et al., & Uemura et al., as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (TW 201731206 A).
With regard to claim 5, Bornstein et al. do not teach the groove part comprises a first groove part and a second groove part which are distinct from each other, and wherein the first groove part and the second groove part are disposed to face each other with the first surface between them.
Lin et al. teach a solar cell module array comprising a glass substrate wherein a notch/concave edge (51a, 121a, 121b, 121c, 121d, 431a, 431b, 431c, 431d) may symmetrically disposed (i.e. “disposed to face each other with the first surface between them”) in the substrate (pg. 4 & figures below). be different shapes as long as collecting line areas 111 can be formed. Collecting line areas allow collection of wires (ribbons/bus bars) (3) to pass from the bottom surface of the glass substrate to the top surface of the glass substrate (pg. 4 & figures below).
PNG
media_image6.png
442
602
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
652
434
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Lin et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form first groove part and a second groove part which are distinct from each other, and wherein the first groove part and the second groove part are disposed to face each other with the first surface between them to provide for electrical wires to pass from the first surface and the second surface of the glass substrate taught by Bornstein et al. as needed for use in an electrical device.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bornstein et al, Garner et al., & Uemura et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Flemming et al. (US 2011/0217657 A1).
With regard to claim 13, Bornstein et al. do not explicitly teach the glass substrate comprises a cavity unit disposed in a portion of the glass substrate, and wherein a thickness between a first surface of the cavity unit and a second surface of the cavity unit is thinner than a thickness between the first surface of the glass substrate and the second surface of the glass substrate.
Flemming et al. teach photosensitive glass wherein a depression (recess/cavity) is formed in the surface of a glass substrate for electrical conduction in a device (‘657 abstract & claim 16, paragraphs [0103] – [0105], Figs. 22 – 24).
PNG
media_image8.png
202
290
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Flemming et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form a cavity in the surface portion of the glass substrate taught by Bornstein et al. in the case of when the glass substrate would be used as a support for electrical components in an electrical device.
Claim(s) 14 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bornstein et al., Garner et al., & Uemura et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hsuan et al. (US 2006/0065976 A1).
* Semiconductor Engineering Website (semiengineering.com)
With regard to claim 14, Bornstein et al. teach an additional layer of material (30), such as metal oxide (e.g., ITO), on the first surface and under the second surface of the glass substrate (10), as best seen in Figs. 3 & 6 (paragraphs [0051] & [0056]).
PNG
media_image9.png
362
552
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
310
466
media_image10.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 15, Bornstein et al. do not teach a semiconductor substrate, comprising the substrate according to claim 1 and a semiconductor element mounted on the substrate.
Hsuan et al. teach a method of manufacturing a wafer level chip scale package structure for semiconductor packaging (i.e., “semiconductor substrate”), wherein a semiconductor wafer is connected to the top surface of a glass substrate (paragraph [0009]). The glass substrate may be pre-treated to form a redistribution layer on the back surface. The redistribution layer can be formed by sputtering an ITO film or electroplating a copper film on the back surface of the glass substrate (paragraph [0030]).
As evidenced by Semiconductor Engineering Website (semiengineering.com), a redistribution layer is defined as interconnects that electrically connect one part of a semiconductor package to another.
Therefore, based on the teachings of Hsuan et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to use both first and second surfaces of the glass substrate taught by Bornstein et al. as a support for a redistribution layer in a semiconductor packaging, wherein the glass the redistribution layers formed of ITO on the first and second surface of the glass support electrically connect different parts of a semiconductor chip (wafer).
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 7 – 10, & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashiwabara et al. (JP 2015-131741 A), in view of Bornstein et al. (US 2015/0198838 A1), Garner et al. (US 2012/0041046 A1), and Uemura et al. (US 2015/0030816 A1).
*Jiangmen Jiuguansong Polymer Material Co. Ltd.
With regard to claim 1, Kashiwabara et al. teach a display device (paragraph [0001]) comprising a glass substrate (14) that has a first surface (14A), a second surface (14B), and an end face (i.e., “edge area”) configured to connect the first surface and the second surface (Fig. 7). The substrate has an end face protective layer (16) (i.e., “protecting device”) formed on the end face including slots (142) (i.e., “through via”) and notches (144) (i.e., “grooves”) (paragraph [0030] & Figs. 7A – 7C shown below).
PNG
media_image11.png
680
460
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Kashiwabara et al. do not teach the minimum thickness of the protective layer (i.e., “protecting device”).
Bornstein et al. teach methods of strengthening the edge surfaces of glass substrates (12 & 14), and particularly glass substrates contained within a display panel (10) (Applicant’s “glass substrate” and “substrate”) (paragraph [0003]) comprising a first surface, a second surface and an edge (32 & 34 of Fig. 2). The edge surfaces (of the glass substrate) (32a – 32d & 34a – 34d) may be protected by applying an edge surface coating (78) (i.e., “protecting device) using whatever edge coating material best meets the need for the particular application, typically a polymer coating material. The edge surface coating thickness may be in a range from about 50 – 75 µm (paragraph [0082] & Figs. 11D – 11D, 12B).
PNG
media_image1.png
308
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Bornstein et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to achieve a polymer layer of sufficient thickness to protect the edges of a glass substrate when the protective layer has a thickness of about 50 – 75 µm. A minimum thickness of 50 µm is more than 5 µm, and therefore within Applicant’s claimed range of 5 µm or more.
Kashiwabara et al. teach the protective layer is made of an edge face protecting polymer, such as a UV curable optically transparent adhesive (paragraph [0026]). Kashiwabara et al. do not explicitly define the total transmittance value of the term “optically transparent.”
Applicant’s specification describes the total transmittance refers to the transmittance of visible rays (paragraph [0104]).
According to Jiangmen Jiuguansong Polymer Material Co. Ltd., one of ordinary skill in the art understands that “UV optical adhesive” (i.e., an optically transparent adhesive cured by UV light) has a total transmittance of over 95%. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the optically transparent polymer material of the protective layer taught by Kashiwabara et al. has a total transmittance over 95%.
Kashiwabara et al. do not explicitly teach the protective layer (i.e., “protective device) comprises a polymer layer having a total transmittance equal to or greater than 87% based on a thickness of 20 µm and a pencil hardness of at least HB as measured according to ASTM D3363, has an elastic modulus of 1.8 MPa to 4 mPa, and a dielectric constant of 2 to 4 at 100 kHz.
Garner et al. teach thin glass substrates having mechanically durable edges formed by a polymeric edge coating. The polymeric edge coating (120) that prevents the creation of strength limiting defects along the edges of a glass substrate (abstract). Examples of the polymeric edge coating include UV curable optical adhesives, such as a siloxane-based polymer of Sylgard 184 (paragraph [0054]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Garner et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to use a polysiloxane-based UV curable optical adhesive, such as Sylgard 184, as the polymeric edge coating of the glass substrate taught by Kashiwabara et al. in order to limit defects the edge of said glass substrate.
Applicant’s preferred embodiment of their protective device is also Sylgard 184 (see specification, paragraph [0096). One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the same protective polymeric edge coating material and thickness (see discussion of claim 1 above) taught by both the prior art and Applicant’s preferred embodiment to have the same properties, such as a total transmittance of equal to or greater than 87%, an adhesive strength of 5B according to ASTM D3359, damage of the glass substrate of the substrate is not substantial when impact with a pressure of approximately 1.1 bar is added 3x – 50x to the protecting device to be directly contacted with a pin having a section that corresponds with a second of the groove part, and a pencil hardness of HB or greater according to ASTM D3363, an elastic modulus of 1.8 MPa to 4 MPa, and a dielectric constant of 2 to 4 at 100 kHz.
It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Kashiwabara et al. do not teach the protecting device is extended by 10 µm to 500 µm into at least one area among the first surface and the second surface connected to the edge area.
Uemura et al. teach a reinforced glass article comprising a glass sheet (10) (i.e., “glass substrate”) comprising a first surface, a second surface, and an edge area configured to connect the first and second surfaces, as well as a protective layer (40) (i.e., “protecting device”) disposed on at least a portion of the edge area. Fig. 1 shown below discloses the protective layer is extended by length “X” onto (“into”) at least one area among the first surface or second surface connected to the edge area (Fig. 1). X is in the range of 10 µm to 200 µm (paragraphs [0036] – [0037] & [0115] – [0117]), which is within Applicant’s claimed range of 10 – 500 µm. The range of X is preferred to prevent abraded edge strength from decreasing, enhance adhesion between the glass sheet and the protective layer is due to an increase in the contact area therebetween, and preventing deterioration of the external appearance (paragraph [0117]).
PNG
media_image3.png
336
502
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Uemera et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to extend the polymer layer taught by Kashiwabara et al. by length a length of 10 – 200 µm onto (“into”) at least one area among the first surface or second surface connected to the edge area in order to prevent an abraded edge strength from decreasing, enhance adhesion between the glass sheet and the polymer layer is due to an increase in the contact area therebetween, and to prevent deterioration of the external appearance.
With regard to claim 2, as discussed above for claim 1, Kashiwabara et al. teach a notch (i.e., “groove part”) that penetrates the first surface and the second surface toward an inner portion of the glass substrate, wherein the protective layer (16) is disposed at the notch part (144) (Fig. 7 above).
With regard to claim 3, Kashiwabara et al. teach the glass substrate is configured to have a shape of a rectangle (i.e., “quadrangle”) and comprises slots (142) (i.e., “through via”) that penetrates the first surface to the second surface (Fig. 7).
Kashiwabara et al. do not teach the glass substrate comprises at least one of an electrically conductive wire and an electrically conductive layer in at least a portion of the glass substrate.
Bornstein et al. teach a display device comprising electrically conducting terminal members (14) (Applicant’s “electrically conductive portion in at least a portion of the glass substrate”) positioned on the terminal portion of a first glass substrate (paragraph [0007), wherein the terminal members comprise electrical terminal elements (42) (paragraph [0053], & Figs. 2 & 7). Additionally, the second major surface (22) of first glass substrate (12) may include an electrically functional layer (28) deposited thereon (Applicant’s “electrically conductive portion in at least a portion of the glass substrate”, Figs. 3 & 6), which may include one or more layers of silicon, metal and/or metal oxides (e.g., film transistors) (paragraph [0051]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Bornstein et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form electrically conducting terminal members of a glass substrate when said substrate is used as a support for electrical components in a display device.
With regard to claim 7, Kashiwabara et al. & Bornstein et al. do not explicitly teach the polymer layer is an elastic layer, and wherein the adhesive strength between the protecting device and the glass substrate is 5B according to ASTM D3359.
However, as discussed above for claim 1, Garner et al. teach a similar polymeric edge coating (protecting device disposed on at least a portion of the edge area). Therefore, the substrate taught by the combination of Kashiwabara et al. and Garner et al. inherently has the same impact protection properties, such as the adhesive strength between the protective device (edge coating) and the glass substrate is 5B according to ASTM D3359.
With regard to claim 8, Kashiwabara et al. do not explicitly teach damage of the glass substrate of the substrate is not substantial when impact with a pressure of approximately 1.1 bar is added three times (3x) to the protecting device to be directly contacted with a pin having a section that corresponds with a section of the groove part.
However, as discussed above for claim 1, Garner et al. teach a similar polymeric edge coating (protecting device disposed on at least a portion of the edge area). Therefore, the substrate taught by the combination of Kashiwabara et al. and Garner et al. inherently has the same impact protection properties, such as a glass substrate that will not have substantial damage when impacted with a pressure of ~1,1 bar is added 3x to the protecting device (edge coating) to be directly contact with a pin having a section that corresponds with a section of the groove part.
With regard to claim 9, Kashiwabara et al. do not explicitly teach damage of the glass substrate of the substrate is not substantial when impact with a pressure of approximately 1.1 bar is added fifty times (50x) to the protecting device to be directly contacted with a pin having a section that corresponds with a second of the groove part.
However, as discussed above for claim 1, Garner et al. teach a similar polymeric edge coating (protecting device disposed on at least a portion of the edge area). Therefore, the substrate taught by the combination of Kashiwabara et al. and Garner et al. inherently has the same impact protection properties, such as a glass substrate that will not have substantial damage when impacted with a pressure of ~1,1 bar is added fifty times to the protecting device (edge coating) to be directly contact with a pin having a section that corresponds with a section of the groove part.
With regard to claim 10, as shown in Fig. 7 above, Kashiwabara et al. teach the groove part has a shape that corresponds to a circle. Applicant’s claim 10 does not define the location of “a first point.” Therefore, any point along the groove may be reasonably interpreted to be “a first point.” The thickness of the glass substrate, and thus the distance from the edge of the groove part at the first surface to the edge of the groove part at the second surface, is a distance of 1 mm or less (paragraph [0018]), which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 1 mm to 15 mm.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 12, as discussed above for claim 6, Kashiwabara et al. teach an exemplary protective layer is a polymer cured by ultraviolet light.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashiwabara et al., Bornstein et al., Garner et al., & Uemura et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mitsuharu (JP H09286638 A).
With regard to claim 4, Kashiwabara et al. & Bornstein et al. do not teach the protecting layer (device) comprises a first protecting layer (device) and a second protecting layer (device) which are distinct from each other, the first protecting device is disposed in an edge area in contact with a first side of the first surface, the second protecting device is disposed in an edge area in contact with a second side of the first surface, and the first side and the second side oppose each other.
Mitsuharu teaches a plate glass (1) comprising opposing chamfered peripheral edge portions (2 & 3) and first edge protector (4) and second edge protector (5) (i.e., “first protecting device” and “second protecting device”) that are distinct from each other (Fig. 1), such that the edge protectors face each other and are in contact with a first side of a first surface and a second side of a first surface where strong external force is expected to be applied (paragraph [0012] & Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image4.png
602
272
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
274
144
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Mitsuharu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form a plurality of distinct edge layers along different regions of the glass substrate edge, such as facing each other, based on where external forces are expected to be applied to the edge of the glass substrate taught by Kashiwabara et al.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashiwabara et al., Bornstein et al., Garner et al., & Uemura et al., as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (TW 201731206 A).
With regard to claim 5, Kashiwabara et al. & Bornstein et al. do not teach the groove part comprises a first groove part and a second groove part which are distinct from each other, and wherein the first groove part and the second groove part are disposed to face each other with the first surface between them.
Lin et al. teach a solar cell module array comprising a glass substrate wherein a notch/concave edge (51a, 121a, 121b, 121c, 121d, 431a, 431b, 431c, 431d) may symmetrically disposed (i.e. “disposed to face each other with the first surface between them”) in the substrate (pg. 4 & figures below) and be different shapes as long as collecting line areas 111 can be formed. Collecting line areas allow collection of wires (ribbons/bus bars) (3) to pass from the bottom surface of the glass substrate to the top surface of the glass substrate (pg. 4 & figures below).
PNG
media_image6.png
442
602
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
652
434
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Lin et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form first groove part and a second groove part which are distinct from each other, and wherein the first groove part and the second groove part are disposed to face each other with the first surface between them to provide for electrical wires to pass from the first surface and the second surface of the glass substrate taught by Kashiwabara et al. as needed for use in an electrical device.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashiwabara et al., Bornstein et al., Garner et al., & Uemura et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Flemming et al. (US 2011/0217657 A1).
With regard to claim 13, Kashiwabara et al. & Bornstein et al. do not explicitly teach the glass substrate comprises a cavity unit disposed in a portion of the glass substrate, and wherein a thickness between a first surface of the cavity unit and a second surface of the cavity unit is thinner than a thickness between the first surface of the glass substrate and the second surface of the glass substrate.
Flemming et al. teach photosensitive glass wherein a depression (recess/cavity) is formed in the surface of a glass substrate for electrical conduction in a device (‘657 abstract & claim 16, paragraphs [0103] – [0105], Figs. 22 – 24).
PNG
media_image8.png
202
290
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Flemming et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form a cavity in the surface portion of the glass substrate taught by Kashiwabara et al. in the case of when the glass substrate would be used as a support for electrical components in an electrical device.
Claim(s) 14 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashiwabara et al., Bornstein et al., Garner et al., & Uemura et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hsuan et al. (US 2006/0065976 A1).
* Semiconductor Engineering Website (semiengineering.com)
With regard to claim 14, Kashiwabara et al. do not teach the glass substrate comprises an upper distribution layer on the first surface, and a lower redistribution layer under the second surface.
With regard to claim 15, Kashiwabara et al. do not teach a semiconductor substrate, comprising the substrate according to claim 1 and a semiconductor element mounted on the substrate.
Bornstein et al. teach an additional layer of material (30), such as metal oxide (e.g., ITO), on the first surface and under the second surface of the glass substrate (10), as best seen in Figs. 3 & 6 (paragraphs [0051] & [0056]).
PNG
media_image9.png
362
552
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
310
466
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Bornstein et al. do not explicitly teach the additional layers on the first surface and under the second surface of the glass substrate are redistribution layers.
Hsuan et al. teach a method of manufacturing a wafer level chip scale package structure for semiconductor packaging (i.e., “semiconductor substrate”), wherein a semiconductor wafer is connected to the top surface of a glass substrate (paragraph [0009]). The glass substrate may be pre-treated to form a redistribution layer on the back surface. The redistribution layer can be formed by sputtering an ITO film or electroplating a copper film on the back surface of the glass substrate (paragraph [0030]).
As evidenced by Semiconductor Engineering Website (semiengineering.com), a redistribution layer is defined as interconnects that electrically connect one part of a semiconductor package to another.
Therefore, based on the teachings of Bornstein et al. & Hsuan et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to use both first and second surfaces of the glass substrate taught by Kashiwabara et al. as a support for a redistribution layer in a semiconductor packaging, wherein the glass the redistribution layers formed of ITO on the first and second surface of the glass support electrically connect different parts of a semiconductor chip (wafer).
Claim(s) 1, 7, & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uemura et al. (US 2015/0030816 A1), in view of Garner et al. (US 2012/0041046 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Uemura et al. teach a reinforced glass article comprising a glass sheet (10) (i.e., “glass substrate”) comprising a first surface, a second surface, and an edge area configured to connect the first and second surfaces, as well as a protective layer (40) (i.e., “protecting device”) disposed on at least a portion of the edge area. Fig. 1 shown below discloses the protective layer has preferred minimum thickness (T2) of 30 µm (paragraph [0111]), which is within Applicant’s claimed range of 5 µm or more, and is extended by length “X” onto (“into”) at least one area among the first surface or second surface connected to the edge area (Fig. 1). The extension length “X” is in the range of 10 µm to 200 µm (paragraphs [0036] – [0037] & [0115] – [0117]), which is within Applicant’s claimed range of 10 – 500 µm. The range of “X” is preferred to prevent an abraded edge strength from decreasing, enhance adhesion between the glass sheet and the protective layer due to an increase in the contact area therebetween, and preventing deterioration of the external appearance (paragraph [0117]).
PNG
media_image3.png
336
502
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Uemura et al. teach the protective layer is composed of a cured resin (i.e., “a polymer”) (paragraphs [0101] – [0102]), but do not explicitly teach the polymer protective layer (i.e., “protective device) has a total transmittance equal to or greater than 87% based on a thickness of 20 µm and a pencil hardness of at least HB as measured according to ASTM D3363, has an elastic modulus of 1.8 MPa to 4 mPa, and a dielectric constant of 2 to 4 at 100 kHz.
Garner et al. teach thin glass substrates having mechanically durable edges formed by a polymeric edge coating. The polymeric edge coating (120) that prevents the creation of strength limiting defects along the edges of a glass substrate (abstract). Examples of the polymeric edge coating include UV curable optical adhesives, such as a siloxane-based polymer of Sylgard 184 (paragraph [0054]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Garner et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to use a polysiloxane-based UV curable optical adhesive, such as Sylgard 184, as the protective layer of the glass substrate taught by Uemura et al. in order to limit defects the edge of said glass substrate.
Applicant’s preferred embodiment of their protective device is also Sylgard 184 (see specification, paragraph [0096). One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the same protective polymeric edge coating material and thickness (see discussion of claim 1 above) taught by both the prior art and Applicant’s preferred embodiment to have the same properties, such as a total transmittance of equal to or greater than 87%, an adhesive strength of 5B according to ASTM D3359, damage of the glass substrate of the substrate is not substantial when impact with a pressure of approximately 1.1 bar is added 3x – 50x to the protecting device to be directly contacted with a pin having a section that corresponds with a second of the groove part, and a pencil hardness of HB or greater according to ASTM D3363, an elastic modulus of 1.8 MPa to 4 MPa, and a dielectric constant of 2 to 4 at 100 kHz.
It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
With regard to claim 7, Uemura et al. do not explicitly teach the polymer layer is an elastic layer, and wherein the adhesive strength between the protecting device and the glass substrate is 5B according to ASTM D3359.
However, as discussed above for claim 1, Garner et al. teach a similar polymeric edge coating (protecting device disposed on at least a portion of the edge area). Therefore, the substrate taught by the combination of Uemura et al. and Garner et al. inherently has the same impact protection properties, such as the adhesive strength between the protective device (edge coating) and the glass substrate is 5B according to ASTM D3359.
With regard to claim 12, Uemura et al. teach the protective layer comprises an ultraviolet cured resin (i.e., “polymer”) (paragraphs [0042] & [0100] – [0102]).
Claim(s) 2, 5, & 8 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uemura et al. & Garner et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kashiwabara et al. (TW 201731206 A).
With regard to claim 2, Uemura et al. do not teach a groove part penetrates the first surface and the second surface (of the glass substrate) toward an inner portion of the glass substrate, and wherein the protecting layer (device) is disposed at the groove part.
With regard to claim 5, Uemura et al. do not teach the groove part comprises a first groove part and a second groove part which are distinct from each other, and wherein the first groove part and the second groove part are disposed to face each other with the first surface between them.
Lin et al. teach a solar cell module array comprising a glass substrate wherein a notch/concave edge (i.e., “groove part penetrates the first surface and the second surface toward the inner portion of the glass substrate”) (51a, 121a, 121b, 121c, 121d, 431a, 431b, 431c, 431d) may symmetrically disposed (i.e. “disposed to face each other with the first surface between them”) in the substrate (pg. 4 & figures below) and be different shapes as long as collecting line areas 111 can be formed. Collecting line areas allow collection of wires (ribbons/bus bars) (3) to pass from the bottom surface of the glass substrate to the top surface of the glass substrate (pg. 4 & figures below).
PNG
media_image6.png
442
602
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
652
434
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Lin et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form first groove part and a second groove part which are distinct from each other, and wherein the first groove part and the second groove part are disposed to face each other with the first surface between them to provide for electrical wires to pass from the first surface and the second surface of the glass substrate taught by Uemura et al. & Garner et al., as needed for use in an electrical device.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date that the protective layer is applied to all edges of the glass substrate taught by Uemura et al., including the modified groove part taught by Lin et al.
With regard to claim 8, Uemura et al. do not explicitly teach damage of the glass substrate of the substrate is not substantial when impact with a pressure of approximately 1.1 bar is added three times (3x) to the protecting device to be directly contacted with a pin having a section that corresponds with a section of the groove part.
However, as discussed above for claim 1, Garner et al. teach a similar polymeric edge coating (protecting device disposed on at least a portion of the edge area). Therefore, the substrate taught by the combination of Uemura et al., Garner et al., & Lin et al. inherently has the same impact protection properties, such as a glass substrate that will not have substantial damage when impacted with a pressure of ~1,1 bar is added 3x to the protecting device (edge coating) to be directly contact with a pin having a section that corresponds with a section of the groove part.
With regard to claim 9, Uemura et al. do not explicitly teach damage of the glass substrate of the substrate is not substantial when impact with a pressure of approximately 1.1 bar is added fifty times (50x) to the protecting device to be directly contacted with a pin having a section that corresponds with a second of the groove part.
However, as discussed above for claim 1, Garner et al. teach a similar polymeric edge coating (protecting device disposed on at least a portion of the edge area). Therefore, the substrate taught by the combination of Uemura et al. & Garner et al. inherently has the same impact protection properties, such as a glass substrate that will not have substantial damage when impacted with a pressure of ~1,1 bar is added fifty times to the protecting device (edge coating) to be directly contact with a pin having a section that corresponds with a section of the groove part.
With regard to claim 10, as shown in the figures above, Lin et al. teach the groove part has a shape that corresponds to a circle. Applicant’s claim 10 does not define the location of “a first point.” Therefore, any point along the groove may be reasonably interpreted to be “a first point.” The thickness of the glass substrate, and thus the distance from the edge of the groove part at the first surface to the edge of the groove part at the second surface, is a distance of 1 mm or less (paragraph [0018]), which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 1 mm to 15 mm.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uemura et al. & Garner et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bornstein et al. and Urruti (U.S. Patent No. 9,130,016 B2).
With regard to claim 3, Uemura et al. teach the intended use of the reinforced glass article wherein an electrode is deposited on said glass substrate to form an electrostatic capacitance type touch panel (paragraphs [0002] – [0003]). However, Uemura et al. do not teach the first and/or second surface of the glass substrate is configured to have a shape of a quandrangle to octagon, wherein the glass substrate comprises a through via that penetrates from the first surface to the second surface, and wherein the glass substrate comprises at least one of an electrically conductive wire and an electrically conductive layer in at least a portion of the glass substrate.
Bornstein et al. teach the glass substrate is configured to have a shape of a rectangle (i.e., “quadrangle” (paragraph [0052]). Electrically conducting terminal members (14) (Applicant’s “electrically conductive layer in at least a portion of the glass substrate”) position on the terminal portion of a first glass substrate (paragraph [0007), wherein the terminal members comprise electrical terminal elements (42) (paragraph [0053], Figs. 2 & 7). Furthermore, second major surface (22) of first glass substrate (12) may include an electrically functional layer (28) deposited thereon (Applicant’s “electrically conductive portion in at least a portion of the glass substrate”, Figs. 3 & 6), which may include one or more layers of silicon, metal and/or metal oxides (e.g., film transistors) (paragraph [0051]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Bornstein et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form electrically conducting terminal members (i.e., “an electrically conductive layer”) of a glass substrate when said substrate is used as a support for electrical components in a display device.
Bornstein et al. do not explicitly teach the glass substrate comprises through vias that penetrates from the first surface to the second surface.
Bornstein et al. do not explicitly teach the glass substrate comprises through vias that penetrates from the first surface to the second surface.
Urruti teaches a method of manufacturing through-glass vias in a glass substrate for 3D microelectronic and MEMS structures. Through-glass vias in a glass substrate are used as electrical interconnects between the front side and back side of the substrates or wafers of the 3D structure (Col. 1, Lines 39 – 53).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Urruti, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form through vias that penetrate the first surface and the second surface of the glass substrate taught by Uemura et al. and Bornstein for providing electrical interconnects between the first surface and the second surface of 3D microelectronic structures.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uemura et al. & Garner et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mitsuharu (JP H09286638 A).
With regard to claim 4, Uemura et al. do not teach the protecting layer (device) comprises a first protecting layer (device) and a second protecting layer (device) which are distinct from each other, the first protecting device is disposed in an edge area in contact with a first side of the first surface, the second protecting device is disposed in an edge area in contact with a second side of the first surface, and the first side and the second side oppose each other.
Mitsuharu teaches a plate glass (1) comprising opposing chamfered peripheral edge portions (2 & 3) and first edge protector (4) and second edge protector (5) (i.e., “first protecting device” and “second protecting device”) that are distinct from each other (Fig. 1), such that the edge protectors face each other and are in contact with a first side of a first surface and a second side of a first surface where strong external force is expected to be applied (paragraph [0012] & Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image4.png
602
272
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
274
144
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Mitsuharu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form a plurality of distinct edge layers along different regions of the glass substrate edge, such as facing each other, based on where external forces are expected to be applied to the edge of the glass substrate taught by Uemura et al.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uemura et al. & Garner et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Flemming et al. (US 2011/0217657 A1).
With regard to claim 13, Uemura et al. do not explicitly teach the glass substrate comprises a cavity unit disposed in a portion of the glass substrate, and wherein a thickness between a first surface of the cavity unit and a second surface of the cavity unit is thinner than a thickness between the first surface of the glass substrate and the second surface of the glass substrate.
Flemming et al. teach photosensitive glass wherein a depression (recess/cavity) is formed in the surface of a glass substrate for electrical conduction in a device (‘657 abstract & claim 16, paragraphs [0103] – [0105], Figs. 22 – 24).
PNG
media_image8.png
202
290
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Flemming et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form a cavity in the surface portion of the glass substrate taught by Uemura et al. in the case of when the glass substrate would be used as a support for electrical components in an electrical device.
Claim(s) 14 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uemura et al. & Garner et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bornstein et al. (US 2015/0198838 A1) & Hsuan et al. (US 2006/0065976 A1).
* Semiconductor Engineering Website (semiengineering.com)
With regard to claim 14, Uemura et al. do not teach the glass substrate comprises an upper distribution layer on the first surface, and a lower redistribution layer under the second surface.
With regard to claim 15, Uemura et al. do not teach a semiconductor substrate, comprising the substrate according to claim 1 and a semiconductor element mounted on the substrate.
Bornstein et al. teach an additional layer of material (30), such as metal oxide (e.g., ITO), on the first surface and under the second surface of the glass substrate (10), as best seen in Figs. 3 & 6 (paragraphs [0051] & [0056]).
PNG
media_image9.png
362
552
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
310
466
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Bornstein et al. do not explicitly teach the additional layers on the first surface and under the second surface of the glass substrate are redistribution layers.
Hsuan et al. teach a method of manufacturing a wafer level chip scale package structure for semiconductor packaging (i.e., “semiconductor substrate”), wherein a semiconductor wafer is connected to the top surface of a glass substrate (paragraph [0009]). The glass substrate may be pre-treated to form a redistribution layer on the back surface. The redistribution layer can be formed by sputtering an ITO film or electroplating a copper film on the back surface of the glass substrate (paragraph [0030]).
As evidenced by Semiconductor Engineering Website (semiengineering.com), a redistribution layer is defined as interconnects that electrically connect one part of a semiconductor package to another.
Therefore, based on the teachings of Bornstein et al. & Hsuan et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to use both first and second surfaces of the glass substrate taught by Kashiwabara et al. as a support for a redistribution layer in a semiconductor packaging, wherein the glass the redistribution layers formed of ITO on the first and second surface of the glass support electrically connect different parts of a semiconductor chip (wafer).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, “The Examiner argues that the wrap-around extension onto the major surface is a matter of optimization.
“Applicant respectfully disagrees. The extension of the protective device into the first/second surface (10 µm to 500 µm) provides a specific structural durability benefit at the edge-surface interface that is not suggested by Bornstein’s vertical-only coating” (Remarks, Pg. 8).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant has misrepresented the record of the current application. This is a new claim limitation that had not been previously considered by the Examiner as of the time of the previous office action. See advisory action mailed April 30, 2026. There is no record of the Examiner making any such argument. The previous rejections do not include any optimization arguments made the Examiner.
With regard to the recited “protecting device…extended by 10 µm to 500 µm into at least one area among the first surface and the second surface connected to the edge area” of the current claim set, the teachings of newly cited reference of Uemura et al. (see rejections above) cure this deficiency.
Applicant argues, “Furthermore, the addition of the dielectric constant limitation (2 to 4 at 100 kHz) further distinguishes the invention.
“As noted in the Specification, the substrate may include redistribution layers (RDLs). A person of ordinary skill would recognize that extending an edge coating onto a functional major surface where RDLs are placed would necessitate specific dielectric properties to prevent signal interference – a concern never addressed by Bornstein or Garner.
“Because the cited art fails to teach this specific structural geometry in combination with the recited electrical performance, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be withdrawn” (Remarks, Pg. 8).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, Applicant’s claim 1 recites the dielectric constant (a property) of the protective layer, but does not recite presence of a redistribution layer (RDL). The dielectric constant of a polymer layer is not a structural geometry.
Second, the motivation to use a particular type of polymer for the protective layer (device) does not need to be the same motivation as discussed in Applicant’s specification. The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings."); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991) (discussed below). See MPEP 2144.IV.
Third, although the cited prior art reference of Garner et al. do not provide the same reason or motivation as Applicant for using the same type of protective device (coating), this does not take away from the fact that that the specific type coating taught by Garner et al. would inherently has the properties recited in claim 1. The prior art does not need to explicitly teach a motivation for a polymer to have a particular property, such as a particular dielectric constant, in the instance when the property is an inherent feature of the polymer taught by the cited prior art. Applicant has failed to demonstrate the coating taught by Garner et al. would not inherently have the recited transmittance, elastic modulus, or dielectric constant properties.
Applicant argues, “Kashiwabara is limited to ‘end face’ protection. Even when combined with Bornstein (thickness) and Garner (material), the resulting combination fails to suggest a protecting device that wraps onto the major surfaces within the specific 10 µm to 500 µm range” (Remarks, Pg. 9).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: In light of Applicant’s amendment of claim 1, a new rejection has been written based on the teachings of Uemura et al. Applicant is directed to the rejections discussed above.
Applicant argues, “Moreover, the combination fails to teach the specific elastic modulus (1.8 MPa to 4 MPa). Garner teaches a ‘compliant’ coating but does not provide specific modulus values required for the structural stability of the edge-surface transition.
“The recited ranges are not merely ‘results of optimization’ but are critical functional limits that ensure the protecting device remains adhered without delamination while maintaining necessary mechanical and electrical performance for a package substrate” (Remarks, Pg. 9).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant appears to be confused between an argument of optimization and an argument of inherency. In the previous rejections and the current rejection, the Examiner has argued that the properties of the particular siloxane-based polymer of Sylgard 184 taught by Garner for a protective layer (which is the exact same type of polymer of the protective device used by Applicant in the workings examples of the specification) are inherent features of the polymer. This is not an argument of optimization.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-1552. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (9 a.m. to 10 p.m.).
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights