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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1–19, in the reply filed on 24 April 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figs. 2A, 2B, 8–14 each have text that is unreadable. These figures are also of low quality, and are difficult to understand, and should be improved.
The drawings are objected to because the arrows from reference characters 140b in fig. 1 are supposed to be pointing to smooth bottoms, but are instead pointing to the middle of recesses 140.
The drawings are objected to because reference character “140C” in figs. 8, 9a, and 14 should be “140c.”
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds the 150-word limit (248 words counted), and because it includes extensive mechanical details that should be replaced by a narrative explanation of the improvement. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶ 2 of the as-filed specification, “a glass-based laminate substrates” should be properly amended to have either a singular or plural tense. The same should be done with “a glass or glass-ceramic laminates.”
¶ 27 of the as-filed specification ends by leaving in a draft note which should be struck.
¶ 41 of the as-filed specification should end with a semi-colon instead of a comma for stylistic conformity.
¶ 48 of the as-filed specification has an unclosed parenthesis.
¶ 56 of the as-filed specification should be amended to replace “the core layer 107” with “the core layer 109.”
¶ 62 of the as-filed specification should be amended to replace “core layer 110” with “core layer 109.”
¶ 85 of the as-filed specification should be amended to replace “recess sidewall(s) 140b” should be “recess sidewall(s) 140c.”
¶ 96 of the as-filed specification mentions a “FIG. 3C,” but there is no figure 3C.
¶ 106 of the as-filed specification has an open parenthesis.
In each of ¶¶ 110 and 111, “112a” should be “112A.”
In ¶ 116 of the as-filed specification, a period belongs between “substrate” and “In.”
¶ 119 of the as-filed specification is missing a period at its end. It also appears to end abruptly, and may be incompletely drafted.
¶ 121 of the as-filed specification should be amended to recite “can be utilized.”
¶ 121 of the as-filed specification should be amended to replace “(e. g.” with “(e.g.”
¶ 121 of the as-filed specification should be amended to replace “reminder of the cladding material” with “remainder of the cladding material.”
¶ 122 of the as-filed specification should be amended to replace “140C” with “140c.”
¶ 124 of the as-filed specification should be amended to replace “lithium / magnesium, calcium, phosphorus” with “lithium, magnesium, calcium, or phosphorus.”
The use of the terms “Zygo,” “Cary,” “Agilent Technologies,” “Lumentum,” “Picoblade,” “Light Converstion,” and “Pharos,” which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, ℠, or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1–20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should be amended to place a comma after “layer” at the end of line 15.
Claim 2 should be amended to recite “a selectivity ratio.”
Claim 16 should be amended to replace “an airy beam” with “an Airy beam.”
Claim 20 has steps (i) and (iii), but no step (ii). The Office guesses that “(iii)” should be amended to recite “(ii).”
Claims 3–15 and 17–19 are objected to due to dependency upon an objected-to claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The adaptive optical element in claim 18 (a spatial light modulator, associated with a “dynamic optical component(s)” in ¶ 102 of the as-filed specification).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 3, 8–10, 13, 14, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (WO 2021/108079 A1, cited by Applicant).
The applied reference has a common Applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Claim 1: Kim discloses a method of forming recesses (120) in a glass laminate (100), the method comprising:
irradiating a portion of a first clad layer (110) of a glass laminate (100) with a pulsed laser beam (912), the glass laminate comprising the first clad layer having a first clad layer thickness (116) and a first clad layer external surface (112) and a core layer (150) having a core layer thickness (156), the irradiating producing an irradiated portion (120) of the first clad layer and a non-irradiated portion (clearly appreciable from fig. 1B) of the first clad layer; and
etching the first clad layer with an etchant that selectively etches the irradiated portion of the first clad layer relative to the non-irradiated portion of the first clad layer and selectively etches the irradiated portion of the first clad layer relative to the core layer (¶ 98, “the etchant used to etch through holes 120 does not etch first glass layer 150 adjacent to through holes 120”),
wherein irradiating with a pulsed laser beam is irradiating with a focused pulsed laser beam producing damage or other physical or chemical alteration in the first clad layer to a depth not more than the first clad layer thickness (¶ 160, “an electromagnetically modified region(s) 160 may extend through only second glass layer 110 or third glass layer 130”).
Kim does not disclose that irradiating with a pulsed laser beam is irradiating with irradiating with a focused pulsed laser beam producing damage or other physical or chemical alteration in the first clad layer to within 0.1 to 20 μm distance from the core layer.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that Kim’s disclosure is clearly not limited only to damage or alteration at, literally, the entire thickness of e.g. the second glass layer 110, particularly seeing as ¶ 98 provides that “In some embodiments, depth 124 of etched through holes 120 may be equal to the thickness 116 of second glass layer 110 +/- 5% of thickness 156 of first glass layer 150,” thereby providing grounds to limit the damage or alteration slightly away from the core layer as claimed, particularly in light of the core layer thicknesses provided in ¶ 101 when considering the “+/- 5%” feature mentioned in ¶ 98.
Comment: Kim does not explicitly disclose the claimed option (2). However, Kim clearly discusses the relevance of the laser intensity (inter alia, ¶¶ 60, 67, and 68), and given that Kim’s method otherwise matches, and provides the same results, as the method claimed, it seems likely that, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to discern an appropriate intensity levels for the quasi-non-diffracting beam, including the levels claimed for the claimed distances with respect to the core layer.
Claim 3: Kim discloses that an area of a cross section of the irradiated portion, taken parallel to the first clad layer external surface beginning just inside the first clad layer external surface and progressed toward the core layer, increases at at least some location along the progression (evident from ¶ 55, “By tailoring the compositions of the clad and core layers, blind vias having a desired geometry, e.g. cylinder or pyramid, on one or both sides of the glass can be precisely and reproducibly formed”).
Claim 8: Kim discloses that the pulsed laser beam is a quasi-non-diffracting beam (¶ 60, “a quasi-non-diffracting Bessel or Gauss-Bessel laser beam”) and wherein irradiating with a pulsed laser beam comprises propagating the quasi-non-diffracting beam in the first clad layer in a direction toward the core layer (this is evident from the general embodiment shown in fig. 9A).
Claim 9: Kim discloses that the pulsed laser beam is a quasi-non-diffracting beam (¶ 60, “a quasi-non-diffracting Bessel or Gauss-Bessel laser beam”), and wherein irradiating with a pulsed laser beam comprises propagating the quasi-non-diffracting beam in the first clad layer in a direction away from the core layer (this is evident from ¶ 160 providing that “The effective line focus of the laser can be positioned such that it spans . . . only the thickness of second glass layer 110, or only the thickness of third glass layer 130,” meaning that, if layer 130 is irradiated, it is done by a laser propagating away from the core layer).
Claim 10: Kim discloses that the glass laminate comprises a second clad layer (130) opposite the first clad layer (see figs. 2 and 4) with the core layer between the first clad layer and the second clad layer (ibid.), and wherein the method comprises irradiating a portion of the second clad layer and etching the second clad layer (140).
Claim 13: Kim discloses that the pulsed laser beam is a quasi-non-diffracting beam (¶ 60, “a quasi-non-diffracting Bessel or Gauss-Bessel laser beam”) and wherein the beam path of the quasi-non-diffracting beam is curved at least in part (¶ 80, “While the contour 970 depicted in FIG.9A is linear, it should be understood that the contour 970 may be non-linear, for example, curved”).
Claim 14: Kim discloses that the pulsed laser beam is an annular quasi-non-diffracting beam (see ¶ 72, “the pulsed laser beam 912 may comprise an annular shape” and “the pulsed laser beam 912 has a quasi-non-diffracting character”).
Claim 16: Kim discloses that the pulsed laser beam is an airy beam (¶ 61, “Airy beams”).
Claim 18: Kim discloses that the pulsed laser beam is a quasi-non-diffracting beam transmitted or formed at least in part by an adaptive optical element (¶ 61, “The quasi-non-diffracting laser beam may be formed by impinging a diffracting laser beam (such as a Gaussian beam) into, onto, and/or thorough a phase-altering optical element, such as an adaptive phase-altering optical element (e.g., a spatial light modulator, an adaptive phase plate, a deformable mirror, or the like)”).
Claim 19: Kim discloses that irradiating a portion of a first clad layer of a glass laminate with a pulsed laser beam comprises varying the properties of the adaptive optical element to vary one or more properties of the quasi-non-diffracting beam (¶ 61, “The quasi-non-diffracting laser beam may be formed by impinging a diffracting laser beam (such as a Gaussian beam) into, onto, and/or thorough a phase-altering optical element, such as an adaptive phase-altering optical element (e.g., a spatial light modulator, an adaptive phase plate, a deformable mirror, or the like), a static phase-altering optical element (e.g., a static phase plate, an aspheric optical element, such as an axicon, or the like), to modify the phase of the beam, to reduce beam divergence, and to increase Rayleigh range”).
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 6, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
Claim 2: Kim does not disclose that the etchant selectively etches the non-irradiated portion of the first clad layer relative to the core layer with selectivity ratio within the range of from 2:1 to 100:1.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated, at least given the examples of 110 and 120 in fig. 2B, that Kim could likely be practiced with selectivity ratios within the claimed broad range.
Claim 6: Kim discloses that the pulsed laser beam is a quasi-non-diffracting beam (¶ 60, “a quasi-non-diffracting Bessel or Gauss-Bessel laser beam”), including a Gaussian propagation (¶ 63, “outputting the pulsed laser beam 912, such as a Gaussian beam, using a beam source 910”)
Kim does not explicitly disclose that the radial energy distribution of the pulsed laser beam, while in Gaussian propagation, is limited by an aperture with an aperture radius corresponding to a beam intensity within a range of from 10 to 70 percent of peak beam intensity.
However, the use of an aperture for such a type of effect is effectively shown in fig. 9B, with how the beam 912 from 910 has its central portion cut off by the time it reaches lens 932. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement such an aperture as a known part of implementing a line focus for a quasi-non-diffractive beam that is depicted in fig. 9B and discussed elsewhere in Kim.
Kim does not disclose its aperture limiting a beam intensity to a range within 10 to 70 percent of peak beam intensity. However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the amount of intensity reduction from the aperture was a results-effective variable, and would have selected an intensity reduction commensurate with the desired material processing.
Claim 17: Kim disclose that the pulsed laser beam is a quasi-non-diffracting beam (¶ 60, “a quasi-non-diffracting Bessel or Gauss-Bessel laser beam”).
Kim does not disclose that the average width of the quasi-non-diffracting beam within the first clad layer is in the range of from 50 to 300 μm.
However, Kim discloses hole diameters of between 10–200 µm (¶ 99), and given that the hole diameter would substantially match the width of the laser beam, Kim more than likely suggests that a laser width within the claimed range would be used to practice at least one embodiment of its invention.
Claim 20: Kim discloses a glass-based laminate (see fig. 1B) comprising:
(i) a glass-based core layer (150); and
(ii) at least one cladding (110) situated directly adjacent to the core layer, the at least one clad layer comprising at least one recess (120) with at least one vertical sidewall (see fig. 1b) and a smooth bottom (fig. 1B fairly shows a smooth bottom of 120).
Kim does not disclose its smooth bottom having RMS surface roughness <75 nm.
However, as Kim otherwise discloses the method which makes the claimed glass-based laminate, including an etch stop effect that Applicant’s disclosure credits with the smooth bottom (see ¶ 117 of the as-filed specification, and ¶¶ 123 and 162 of Kim), it is more likely than not that the glass-based laminate shown in Kim would inherently have a smooth bottom with an RMS surface roughness <75 nm as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, and 15 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, while angled holes are known in the art (see Boek et al., US Pat. 9,278,886, fig. 12), there does not seem to be any reason to implement such a design into Kim, particularly seeing as Kim is directed to vias rather than simple holes.
Claim 5 depends from claim 4.
Regarding claim 7, a soft aperture does not appear obvious to use in the claimed method from sufficiently analogous art.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the claimed features are specific and do not appear able to be judged as mere results-effective variables.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art does not seem to suggest using such a beam type with the claimed method.
Boek et al. (WO 2019/023213 A1, cited by Applicant) is relevant, but no pulsed laser is used as claimed.
Kim et al. (WO 2019/195378 A1, cited by Applicant) discloses a more basic form of the claimed method (¶ 71).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, Edward (Ned) F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights