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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 21, 2026, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Regarding claim 23-35, the phrase "and/or" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by " and/or "), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The applicant must clearly claim either "and" or "or," or otherwise recite the precise combination intended.- "at least in part and/or at least for a bandwidth of wavelengths" (regarding the transparency of the second substrate) is vague. It is unclear what minimum degree of transparency, what portion of the substrate, or what bandwidth is required.
For examination purposes, the examine will interpret the terms “and/or” to be “or”.
“at least a first substrate and a second substrate, wherein the second substrate is transparent at least in part and/or at least for a bandwidth of wavelengths” is interpreted as “at least a first substrate and a second substrate, wherein the second substrate is transparent “.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 23-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perraud et al. (US 2015/0314129).
In regard to claim 23, Perraud et al. teaches a hermetically sealed enclosure (4C), comprising: at least a first substrate (15) and a second substrate (The lower sheet 11 can also be a part made of glass, paragraph [0058]), wherein the second substrate (11) is transparent (the glass in comparison with the metal is its better transparency to electromagnetic or light radiation, paragraph 0058]); a function zone (area within the internal part (64)) that is circumferentially enclosed in the enclosure (see figure 6B); at least one laser weld line to hermetically weld the substrates of the enclosure with each other (A first hermetic seal is formed between the lower sheet 61 and the internal part 64 of the lower metal surround 62. Advantageously, this hermetic seal is formed by soldering. Alternatively, this hermetic seal can be formed by solid state diffusion welding, paragraph [0103]; the process of welding is not germane to the product claim) and at least one reduction zone (pre-encapsulation layer 42) capable of reducing an amount of molecules in the function zone (area within the internal part (64)) since it further confines the function zone.
In regard to claim 24, Perraud et al. teaches the hermetically sealed enclosure of claim 23, further comprising: an inner surface of the first substrate (15), each facing towards the function zone (see figure 4C)); wherein the at least one reduction zone (42) is arranged on said inner surface of the first substrate (15).
PNG
media_image1.png
611
834
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 25, Perraud et al. teaches the hermetically sealed enclosure of claim 23, wherein at least one reduction zone (42) is comprised as a coating on an inner side of the first substrate (11).
In regard to claim 26, Perraud et al. teaches the hermetically sealed enclosure of claim 25, wherein the at least one reduction zone (42) comprises at least one of nanostructures (a pre-encapsulation polymer charged with silica particles (in particular nanoparticles, paragraph [011]).
In regards to claim 27, Perraud et al. teaches the hermetically sealed enclosure of claim 23, wherein at least one reduction zone (42) is capable of absorbing water vapor from the function zone (this function is not germane to the structure of the claim).
In regard to claim 28, Perraud et al. teaches the hermetically sealed enclosure of claim 23, wherein the at least one reduction zone (42) capable of continuously reduce the amount of molecules in the function zone (this function is not germane to the structure of the claim).
In regard to claim 29, Perraud et al. teaches the hermetically sealed enclosure of claim 23, wherein the enclosure (figure 4c) is designed such that the at least one reduction zone (42) is capable of regenerating or reactivated or activated by means of heating up the at least one reduction zone (42).
In regard to claim 30, Perraud et al. teaches the hermetically sealed enclosure (figure 4c) of claim 23, wherein the at least one reduction zone (42) is capable of being is regenerated or reactivated or activated by means of fire polishing, dry or wet etching, dry or wet cleaning, or plasma cleaning.
In regards to claim 31, Perraud et al. teaches the hermetically sealed enclosure (figure 4c) of claim 23, wherein the at least one laser weld line (see figure 6B); at least one laser weld line to hermetically weld the substrates of the enclosure with each other (A first hermetic seal is formed between the lower sheet 61 and the internal part 64 of the lower metal surround 62. Advantageously, this hermetic seal is formed by soldering. Alternatively, this hermetic seal can be formed by solid state diffusion welding, paragraph [01032]) wherein the at least one laser weld line directly binds the first substrate and the second substrate to each other by means of a direct laser-induced welding process (the process of the welding is not germane to the product claim).
In regard to claim 32, Perraud et al. teaches the hermetically sealed enclosure of the hermetically sealed enclosure wherein the at least one laser weld line reaches both into the first substrate and the second substrate (A first hermetic seal is formed between the lower sheet 61 and the internal part 64 of the lower metal surround 62. Advantageously, this hermetic seal is formed by soldering. Alternatively, this hermetic seal can be formed by solid state diffusion welding, paragraph [01032]) wherein the at least one laser weld line directly binds the first substrate and the second substrate to each other by means of a direct laser-induced welding process (the process of the welding is not germane to the product claim).
In regards to claim 33, Perraud et al. teaches the hermetically sealed enclosure of claim 23, wherein the function zone comprises at least one cavity (cavity is within the substrate (15; figure 4B).
In regard to claim 34, Perraud et al. teaches the hermetically sealed enclosure of claim 23, wherein the first substrate is, at least in a contact area, in direct contact with the second substrate (figure 4C).
In regard to claim 35, Perraud et al. teaches the hermetically sealed enclosure of claim 23, wherein the at least one reduction zone (42) is capable to reduce a molecule content to 700 ppm or less (the process is not germane of the product claim).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed June 11, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues:
“The Office contends that, ‘the phrase “and/or” renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by “and/or”), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable.’ Applicant respectfully disagrees.”
The Examiner respectfully traverses Applicant’s argument. The rejection is not based on a determination that the claims include subject matter that is not actually disclosed. Rather, the rejection is based on the use of the phrase “and/or” which renders the scope of the claim unclear. As previously stated, Applicant must clearly claim either “and” or “or” or otherwise recite the precise combination intended.
The phrase “and/or” creates ambiguity because it is unclear which of the listed limitations are required by the claim and which are optional. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not reasonably ascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is maintained.
Applicant further argues:
“The Office has failed to show that Perraud discloses ‘at least one reduction zone for reducing an amount of molecules in the function zone,’ as recited by independent claim 23 and all claims depending therefrom, because the cited ‘reduction zone’ — pre-encapsulation layer 42 of Perraud — is not a reduction zone for reducing an amount of molecules in the function zone as recited by the claims. The hermetically sealed enclosure according to the invention provides at least one reduction zone for reducing an amount of molecules in the function zone. The molecules to be reduced may be gases that evaporate from electronics in the function zone or water.”
The Examiner respectfully traverses Applicant’s argument. The claim language “for reducing an amount of molecules in the function zone” is functional language, as it defines the recited “reduction zone” by the result it is intended to achieve rather than by a particular structure, composition, or arrangement. The claim does not recite a specific material, mechanism, quantity of reduction, type of molecule, or structural configuration required to perform the recited reduction function.
Nevertheless, even if the functional language is given patentable weight, Perraud teaches a hermetically sealed structure that protects encapsulated components from biological tissues and fluids. See, e.g., Perraud, paragraph [0002]. The cited pre-encapsulation layer 42, in combination with the hermetic enclosure disclosed by Perraud, is capable of reducing or limiting the presence of molecules, including fluid or water molecules, in the internal region where the components are located. Thus, Perraud’s hermetically sealed structure is reasonably capable of performing the recited function of reducing the amount of molecules in the function zone.
Accordingly, the claimed limitation is taught or at least rendered obvious by Perraud. Therefore, the rejection of independent claim 23, and the claims depending therefrom, is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ujihara (JP H09219288) teaches a hermetic structure with a functional layer that is reliably shielded from moisture in the atmosphere.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTAL ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9258. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-5 M-F.
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, Timothy Dole can be reached on (571)-272-2229. 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.
/KRYSTAL ROBINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2848
Prosecution Insights