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 of Group I (claims 1-12) in the reply filed on 12/4/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 8, line 3 the limitation “to 102 to” is unclear and indefinite.
In claim 12, line 2 the limitation “thickness of thickness of 50 µm” is unclear and indefinite.
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, 5, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Humpston et al. (US2003/0198428A1) (hereafter Humpston).
With respect to claim 1, Humpston teaches a method for binding a first optical element to a substrate comprising: receiving a first optical element (120/250) and a substrate (110/230); positioning an indium foil (130/240) between the first optical element and the substrate (figures 1, 2A, 3A, and 3B; and paragraphs 22-35); securing the first optical element to the substrate to produce a pre-bonded assembly, wherein the indium foil (thin toroid solder having a thickness of less than 20 µm) is disposed between the first optical element and the substrate (figures 1, 2A, 3A, and 3B; and paragraphs 22-35); heating the pre-bonded assembly above a melting temperature of the indium foil (figures 1, 2A, 3A, and 3B; and paragraphs 22-35); cooling the pre-bonded assembly (figures 1, 2A, 3A, and 3B; and paragraphs 22-35); and releasing the pre-bonded assembly, wherein releasing the pre-bonded assembly releases a bonded structure (figures 1, 2A, 3A, and 3B; and paragraphs 22-35). Note that the article is intrinsically cooled and released from the soldering apparatus prior to being placed into service.
With respect to claim 5, Humpston teaches wherein the substrate comprises a metal layer (paragraph 26).
With respect to claim 11, Humpston teaches wherein the indium foil comprises greater than 99.99 percent indium (paragraph 27).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maier et al. (US2005/0082348A1) (hereafter Maier) in view of Humpston et al. (US2003/0198428A1) (hereafter Humpston).
With respect to claim 1, Maier teaches a method for binding a first optical element to a substrate comprising: receiving a first optical element (24) and a substrate (74); positioning an indium foil (72) between the first optical element and the substrate (figure 1; and paragraphs 7, 18, and 21-24); securing the first optical element to the substrate to produce a pre-bonded assembly, wherein the indium foil is disposed between the first optical element and the substrate (figure 1; and paragraphs 7, 18, and 21-24). Maier also mentions in paragraph [0019] that existing technologies for sealing glass-to-metal involve heat and/or pressure to facilitate the "cold flow" process for the bonding of glass-to-metal using, for example, metallic indium.
While, Humpston teaches heating the pre-bonded assembly above a melting temperature of the indium foil (figures 1, 2A, 3A, and 3B; and paragraphs 22-35); cooling the pre-bonded assembly (figures 1, 2A, 3A, and 3B; and paragraphs 22-35); and releasing the pre-bonded assembly, wherein releasing the pre-bonded assembly releases a bonded structure (figures 1, 2A, 3A, and 3B; and paragraphs 22-35). Note that the article is intrinsically cooled and released from the soldering apparatus prior to being placed into service.
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add heat as taught by Humpston to the process of Maier in order to wet and hermetically seal the components together.
With respect to claim 2, Maier teaches purging the pre-bonded assembly with an inert gas (paragraph 20).
With respect to claim 5, Maier teaches wherein the substrate comprises a metal layer (paragraph 23).
With respect to claim 6, Maier teaches wherein the first optical element comprises CaF.sub.2 (paragraphs 5, 18, and 20).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humpston as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Castany et al. (US11,855,038B2) (hereafter Castany).
With respect to claim 2, Humpston does not teach purging the pre-bonded assembly with an inert gas.
However, Castany teaches purging the pre-bonded assembly with an inert gas (column 12, line 59-column 13, line 16).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the inert gas of Castany in the process of Humpston in order to prevent contamination and/or oxidation during the soldering process.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humpston as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yao et al. (CN-110270730A) (hereafter Yao).
With respect to claims 3-4, Humpston does not teach reworking the bonded structure; and wherein reworking the bonded structure comprises heating the bonded structure above the melting temperature of the indium foil.
However, Yao teaches desoldering (reworking) an indium solder bond which would intrinsically require heating the bonded structure above the melting temperature of the indium (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 the desoldering of Yao on the on the bonded assembly of Humpston in order to recycle the indium.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humpston as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yin et al. (US2016/0004049A1) (hereafter Yin).
With respect to claim 7, Humpston does not teach wherein the substrate comprises a second optical element.
However, Yin teaches wherein the substrate comprises a second optical element (Figure 1; paragraph 25; and claim 22).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the substrate of Yin in the process of Humpston in order to form a wafer-level lens system of the desired configuration. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element (optical element) for another (optical element) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See MPEP 2143.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humpston as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Marafioti (US3,235,943).
With respect to claims 8-9, Humpston does not teach wherein heating the pre-bonded assembly above the melting temperature of the indium foil comprises heating the pre-bonded assembly to within a range of 156° C to 175° C; and wherein heating the pre-bonded assembly above the melting temperature of the indium foil comprises heating the pre-bonded assembly to 165° C.
However, Marafioti teaches heating indium to 180 ºC to form a bond (column 2, lines 19-55). When heating up to 180 ºC the indium intrinsically travels through the range of 156° C. to 175° C, and 165° C.
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the heating temperature of Marafioti in the process of Humpston in order to melt the entire mass of indium in the desired amount of time.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humpston as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maidler et al. (US11,855,038B2) (hereafter Maidler).
With respect to claim 12, Humpston does not teach wherein the indium foil comprises a thickness of thickness of 50 μm.
However, Maidler teaches an indium foil that comprises a thickness of 50 μm (claim 1).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the indium foil having a thickness of 50 μm as taught by Maidler in the process of Humpston in order to deliver the desire quantity of solder to the bonding interface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is 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