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 .
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, 5, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Humpston et al. (US2003/0198428A1) (hereafter Humpston) in view of Houston et al. (US 4,204,628) (hereafter Houston).
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 1, Humpston does not teach using a clamp assembly comprising a base plate configured to receive the first optical element and the substrate, a top plate, and a plurality of retaining elements coupled to the base plate and the top plate, wherein a tightening of the plurality of retaining elements into the base plate increases a clamping force upon the first optical element and the substrate.
However, Houston teaches using a clamp assembly (figures 1, 2, and 4) comprising a base plate (14) configured to receive first and second components, a top plate (12), and a plurality of retaining elements (18/20) coupled to the base plate and the top plate, wherein a tightening of the plurality of retaining elements into the base plate increases a clamping force upon the first and second components (figures 1, 2, and 4; and column 2, line 54-column 5, line 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 clamp of Houston on the first and second optical components of Humpston in order to obtain the even distribution of loading force during bonding and a uniform bond.
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(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) and Houston et al. (US 4,204,628) (hereafter Houston).
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 1, Maier and Humpston do not teach using a clamp assembly comprising a base plate configured to receive the first optical element and the substrate, a top plate, and a plurality of retaining elements coupled to the base plate and the top plate, wherein a tightening of the plurality of retaining elements into the base plate increases a clamping force upon the first optical element and the substrate.
However, Houston teaches using a clamp assembly (figures 1, 2, and 4) comprising a base plate (14) configured to receive first and second components, a top plate (12), and a plurality of retaining elements (18/20) coupled to the base plate and the top plate, wherein a tightening of the plurality of retaining elements into the base plate increases a clamping force upon the first and second components (figures 1, 2, and 4; and column 2, line 54-column 5, line 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 clamp of Houston on the first and second optical components in the collective process of Humpston and Maier in order to obtain the even distribution of loading force during bonding and a uniform bond.
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 and Houston 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 and Houston do 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 collective process of Humpston and Houston 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 and Houston 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 and Houston do 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 and Houston as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yin et al. (US2016/0004049A1) (hereafter Yin).
With respect to claim 7, Humpston and Houston do 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 collective process of Humpston and Houston 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 and Houston as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Marafioti (US3,235,943).
With respect to claims 8-9, Humpston and Houston do 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 collective process of Humpston and Houston 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 and Houston 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 and Houston do 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 collective process of Humpston and Houston 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights