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
Claims 9-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method of making a glass article and a glass article including a film layer, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 22nd, 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-8 and 28) in the reply filed on May 22nd, 2026, is acknowledged.
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 1-8 and 28 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.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “the elevated surface” and “the relief surface,” but there is no antecedent basis for these limitations. Claim 1 recites the existence of “at least one elevated surface” and “at least one relief surface”. In the event of multiple elevated surfaces and/or multiple relief surfaces, it would be unclear which elevated surface and/or relief surface, in particular, is being specified by the phrases “the elevated surface” and “the relief surface”. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as directed to a relief surface of the at least one relief surface and an elevated surface of the at least one elevated surface. In addition, claim 1 recites the phrase “a width S defined at H/2”, which renders the claim indefinite. Figures 1 and Figures 3C of the present drawings depict the formation of rectangular surface features. For such surface features, the width S would be undefined, as, technically, there is no location at which H/2 exists (i.e., the relief surface only has two depths – zero and H). Figures 3A and 3B of Applicant’s drawings depict an embodiment in which H/2 is present, and Figure 3C of Applicant’s drawings depict an embodiment in which H/2 is not present. Figure 3C, however, still notes the presence of S, where S appears to be measured at a depth of zero. It is unclear if the claim should be interpreted as including or excluding structures such as those of Figure 3C. It could be argued that since H/2 does not exist, rectangular wells (such as those of Figure 3C) are not entertained. However, Applicant’s specification broadly discusses all of Figures 3A-3C with respect to a width defined at H/2, which suggests that, instead, Figure 3C should be considered within the scope of the claim, as there is only one singular value for S possible (namely, at a depth of 0 and a depth of H, which, either way, is a width S, in which case, the argument that Figure 3C is not within the scope of the claims appears unreasonable). The present specification is ambiguous as to whether the width as claimed includes a width S defined at H/2 with respect to the embodiment of Figure 3C (i.e., no H/2 is specified, and H/2 is clearly impossible, but paragraph [0054] almost seems to suppose a width S at H/2 as present). The definition for S appears to hinge on two separate, competing interpretations in light of the specification. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as directed to a width at H/2, should H/2 exist, or a width measured from where the relief surface meets the elevated surface if H/2 does not exist.
Claims 2-8 and 28 are rejected as indefinite due to dependence on indefinite claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “the wall angle”, but there is no antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 2, from which claim 5, depends, does not recite a wall angle. Claim 4, however, recites a wall angle. It is possible claim 5 should depend from claim 4. In the interest of compact prosecution, claim 5 will be interpreted as reciting a wall angle.
Claim 6 recites the phrase “the relief surface”, but there is lack of antecedent for this limitation. Claim 1, from which claim 6 ultimately depends, specifies the inclusion of “at least one relief surface”. In the event of multiple relief surfaces, it is unclear which relief surface is meant by the phrase “the relief surface”. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as directed to a relief surface of the at least one relief surface.
Claims 7-8 are rejected as indefinite due to dependence on indefinite claim 6.
Claim 28 recites the phrase “the glass layer comprising a melting point less than 450⁰C,” but there is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 1, from which claim 28 depends, recites a glass layer having a glass transition temperature of less than 450⁰C, and not a glass layer with a melting point less than 450⁰C as claimed. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as directed to the glass layer of claim 1. In addition, the phrase “the elevated surface” lacks antecedent basis, as claim 1, from which claim 28 depends, recites the potential inclusion of multiple elevated surfaces (in which case, it would not be clear which elevated surface is specified by the phrase “the elevated surface”). In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as directed to an elevated surface of the at least one elevated surface.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 8 attempts to further limit the claimed invention via the phrase “wherein the pattern forms a surface texture.” However, claim 6, from which claim 8 depends, already recites a pattern comprising a series of elevated surfaces and a series of troughs forming the relief surface therebetween. The structure of claim 8 already requires the pattern to be in the form of a surface texture (i.e., as a series of elevated surfaces and a series of troughs is, itself, a surface texture). Therefore, it is not seen how claim 8 further limits the claimed invention (i.e., as meeting claim 6 automatically implies meeting claim 8).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Examiner’s Note
In the amended claim set filed May 22nd, 2026, claims 22 and 24-25 do not include the “(Withdrawn)” status identifier, though Applicant’s Remarks acknowledges all of claims 9-27 as withdrawn. The status identifiers for claims 22 and 24-25 should be changed to “(Withdrawn)”.
Claims 1-8 and 28 contain subject matter which is distinguishable over the prior art of record. Presuming the issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112(d) are rectified, claims 1-8 would be considered allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for indicating distinguishable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record are Kubota (JPH11160502A), Boek (WO2016/069822A1), and Koval (US2013/0223922A1). Kubota is read from English machine translations which have been placed in the Application file.
Kubota is directed to a microlens array formed of a low-melting glass layer having a melting point of 100⁰C to 400⁰C (i.e., implying a glass transition temperature below 450⁰C), wherein the microlens array is depicted as including a primary surface defining a series of grooves (i.e., a plurality of surface features comprising at least one elevated surface protruding to at least one relief surface), the microlens array being formed by an etch mask (i.e., as best understood, the elevated surface is defined by an etch mask and the relief surface is defined as an inverse pattern of the etch mask) (Kubota: para. [0013]; Figs. 1-2). The grooves have a depth of about 2 to 100 microns, which overlaps the claimed range of from about 0.2 to about 10 microns (Kubota: para. [0013]). Kubota teaches a width of 5 to 10 microns, though the width is not measured at H/2 (Kubota: para. [0013]; Figs. 1-2). However, Kubota more broadly teaches that the formation pitch and width of each microlens is appropriately set depending application (Kubota: para. [0013]). Despite these teachings, however, Kubota does not teach its low-melting glass as comprising a phosphate glass, and instead, the glass is formed of a PbO-ZnO-B2O3 system, PbO-SiO2-B2O3 system.
Boek and Koval are both directed to glass systems comprising phosphate (Boek: para. [0005]-[0006]; Koval: claims 1-2). However, both of Boek and Koval are directed to SnO-based glass systems, which Kubota teaches as having low compatibility with its materials, including low-melting glasses (Boek: para. [0005]-[0006]; Koval: claims 1-2; Kubota: para. [0010]). Instead, Kubota uses such materials for its diffusion prevention layer due to the low compatibility with its low-melting glass (Kubota: para. [0010]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would have been lead away from the systems of Boek and Koval for the low-melting glass layer of Kubota (and therefore, would not have included such a system which includes phosphate). Moreover, Kubota requires its low-melting glass to be capable of being etched, melted, and combined with a diffusion prevention layer, such that a microlens results – it is not clear that phosphate could be added to the low-melting glass of Kubota without destroying such functionality. Boek and Koval are also both directed to the use of glass materials in welding and sealing, specifically, and not forming a microlens array (i.e., as best understood, the glass compositions of Boek and Koval are not intended to be used to form microlenses) (Boek: para. [0005]-[0006]; Koval: claims 1-2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Maria V. 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 WEYDEMEYER/
Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights