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 § 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 1 – 17 and 20 – 22 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the limitation “the glass” in l. 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 refers to a “glass substrate” and a “glass composition” in l. 1 of the claim which the examiner observes may be the intended antecedent. The examiner respectfully requests verification and amendment as needed to clarify this ambiguity.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation “the glass structure” in ll. 11 – 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites to “the glass forms a structure” in l. 7 of the claim. The examiner recommends revision to “the glass forms a glass structure” to avoid any issues with “the glass structure” as highlighted above.
Regarding claims 2 – 17 and 20 – 22, each of claims 2 – 17 and 20 – 22 depends, directly or indirectly, on claim 1. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph. Accordingly, each of claims 2 – 17 and 20 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites “the glass substrate is patterned to form one or more pathways for integration of one or more predetermined components” (ll. 1 – 2 of the claim). The metes and bounds of “predetermined” are vague and therefore it is unclear what structure the pathways should be patterned with. Dependent claims 14 and 15 specify vias and channels which the examiner believes to be examples of “predetermined” components, but there is nothing in claim 13 which suggests this ought to be the case.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, each of claims 14 and 15 depend, directly or indirectly, on claim 13. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph. Accordingly, each of claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the same reasons as claim 13.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 recites “a step of calcining the mixture prior to the step of melting at a temperature of 150 °C to 250 °C for a predetermined time” (ll. 1 – 3 of the claim). The metes and bounds of “predetermined” are vague and therefore it is unclear what time should be employed with this step.
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See MPEP § 2111.01, II.
Therefore, while the instant specification gives exemplary times (e.g. ¶ [0100]), these should not be construed as limiting claim 21.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 18, 19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2023/0348317 A1, as an English-language equivalent to WO 2022/054694 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Suzuki discloses a glass-bonded ceramic (e.g. ¶¶ [0015] – [0072]) comprising:
a glass composition comprising xB2O3-ySiO2-zM2O,
wherein 8≤x<28 by mol% (e.g. ¶¶ [0020], [0021], [0037], [0040], [0063], [0066]);
wherein 60<y<85 by mol% (e.g. ¶¶ [0020], [0021], [0037], [0038], [0063], [0064]);
wherein M is an alkali metal and wherein 0≤z≤10 by mol% (e.g. ¶¶ [0020], [0021], [0037], [0042], [0063], [0067] – [0070]), and
aluminum oxide (e.g. ¶¶ [0021], [0037], [0039], [0065]),
wherein the glass-bonded ceramic has a dielectric loss tangent equal to or less than 1x10-2 in a frequency range from 1 GHz to 1 THz (e.g. ¶¶ [0091], [0093]).
Suzuki’s disclosed ranges of the glass-bonded ceramic overlap or lie within the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges “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). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 19, Suzuki discloses an article comprising the glass-bonded ceramic discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 18, wherein the article comprises, e.g., an antenna (e.g. ¶ [0146]).
Regarding claim 23, Suzuki discloses a method comprising:
a) forming a first mixture comprising xB2O3-ySiO2-zM2O (mixing is implied to form a composition of these species),
wherein 8≤x<28 by mol% (e.g. ¶¶ [0020], [0021], [0037], [0040], [0063], [0066]);
wherein 60<y<85 by mol% (e.g. ¶¶ [0020], [0021], [0037], [0038], [0063], [0064]);
wherein M is an alkali metal and wherein 0≤z≤10 by mol% (e.g. ¶¶ [0020], [0021], [0037], [0042], [0063], [0067] – [0070]),
b) mixing the first mixture with, e.g., aluminum oxide to form a
second mixture (e.g. ¶¶ [0021], [0037], [0039], [0065]); and
c) forming a glass-bonded ceramic (so as to form articles per, e.g., ¶ [0146]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN A UTT whose telephone number is (571)270-0356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Central.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/ETHAN A. UTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783