DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-5, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosowski et al. (GB 2583090) in view of Thomas et al. (WO 2023083957 machine translation provided) and Abdolvand (2017/0050881). Regarding claims 1 and 4, Rosowski discloses a method of bonding glass to metal foil, the metal comprising contacting a glass substrate and a metal foil to create an interface therebetween, and directing a laser beam operating at a predetermined wavelength onto the interface to form an interfacial weld between the glass substrate and the metal foil (1st – 3rd ¶ on page 1, all of page 2), wherein the laser beam comprises a pulsed laser having a pulse width in the range of 20 ns to 10,000 ns (middle of page 4), which overlaps with the claimed range of 1 nanosecond to 200 nanoseconds. Rosowski teaches the metal foil has a thickness (41), but does specify values for the thickness (figure 4, 2nd to lass passage on page 7). Rosowski also teaches the method is used for producing seals for hermetic enclosures, such as hermetic electronic packaging (middle of page 4). Thomas also teaches a method for bonding glass to metal foil using laser welding of the interface between the glass and metal foil (abstract, paragraph bridging pages 2-3, 4th passage on page 4), so as to product a hermetic seal for electronic packages (5th passage on page 2). Thomas further teaches using metal foils having a thickness of 100 µm or less, but at least 10 µm (3rd passage on page 5), which overlaps with the claimed the range of 5 µm – 200 µm. Thomas teaches this thickness provides for a metal foil that is sufficiently flexible so it can cling to the contact surface, while also being reliably welded to the substrate. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for a similarly metal foil having a thickness in the range of 10 µm to 100 µm in the process of Rosowski, as Thomas teaches such a metal foil thickness allows for a flexible metal foil while also be reliably welded at the interface, thereby providing for a hermetic seal.
Furthermore, Rosowski teaches selecting the pulsed repetition frequency (bottom quarter of page 9), but doesn’t specify a value. Rosowski also teaches the energy density of the pulsed laser is an important parameter and should be selected to not be too high to prevent cracking and not too low to ensure sufficient energy is absorbed to form the weld (2nd paragraph on page 7), but doesn’t specify a value. Abdolvand teaches forming weld between an interface comprising glass, using metal nanoparticles and a laser. Like Rosowski, Abdolvand also teaches using a nanosecond pulse laser ([0038]) having a wavelength of 532 nm ([0041]), and a focal spot diameter of 60 µm ([0046]). Abdolvand further teaches the laser has a repetition rate of between 20 kHz and 200kHz (regarding claim 4), which falls within the claimed range of 1kHz – 1000 kHz ([0039]), and a mean laser fluence of from 0.05 to 3 J/cm2 ([0048]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 J/cm2 - 100 J/cm2. Abdolvand teaches such settings for the laser provides for sufficient welding at the interface without forming cracks ([0129]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have employed a laser having a similar repetition rate of between 20 kHz and 200kHz and a fluence of 0.05 to 3 J/cm2 as it provides successful welding of a glass using metal at an interface without forming cracks, as taught by Abdolvand.
Regarding claim 2, as mentioned, Rosowski teaches the interfacial weld is a hermetic seal between the glass substrate and the metal foil (2nd passage on page 2, 4th passage from the bottom on page 4).
Regarding claim 3, Rosowski teaches the pulsed laser comprises a wavelength in the range of 1000 nm – 1100 nm (bottom page 10), which overlaps with the claimed range of 260nm-2500nm.
Regarding claim 5, Rosowski teaches the pulsed laser comprises a focal spot diameter in the range of 25 µm to 100 µm (bottom of page 9), which overlaps with the claimed range of 5 µm – 300 µm.
Regarding claim 10, Rosowski teaches forming additional welds on the metal foil, the additional welds forming a pattern, such as spirals, concentric circles or grids (top two paragraphs on page 8).
Regarding claim 11, Rosowski teaches the glass substrate comprises a glass, or a glass ceramic (top third of page 3), but does not specify a specific glass. Thomas also teaches the glass substrate comprises a glass or glass ceramic, and specifies glasses such as aluminosilicate glass (2nd passage on page 10). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have employed well-known glass, such as aluminosilicate glass, for the glass substrate of Rosowski, as such material is common and can be used for producing hermetically bonded assemblies by laser welding.
Regarding claim 12, Rosowski teaches the metal foil comprises aluminum (middle of page 8).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 and 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 6- 9, and 12-13 of copending Application No. 18/378,232 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Both claims 1-5 and 12 of the instant application and the reference application recite the method of bonding a glass to metal foil, the method comprising contacting a glass ceramic substrate and a metal foil to create an interface therebetween and directing a laser beam at a predetermined wavelength onto the interface to form an interfacial weld between the glass substrate and the metal foil, wherein the metal foil has an overlapping thickness (5µm-200µm vs 10µm-100µm), the metal foil comprises aluminum, and the laser beam has an overlapping repetition rate (1kHz-1000kHz vs 1kHz – 800kHz), an overlapping wavelength (260 nm-2500 nm vs 250 nm- 2µm), an overlapping power density (less than or equal to 6 J/cm2 vs 0.1 J/cm2 - 100 J/cm2) and an overlapping pulse width (1ns-200ns vs 1ns-30ns).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 1, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the metal is between the first substrate and the second substrate in the welding method of Rosowski, meanwhile the metal is integrally formed within the second substrate in the method Abdolvand. Applicant elaborates metal interface of Rosowski absorbs light such that a join is formed, while the metal nanoparticles of Abdolvand absorb energy and then transfers the energy to heat the glass. These differences would not provide a reasonable expectation of success in employing the laser settings of Abdolvand in the bonding method of Rosowski. This is not found persuasive because despite the structural arrangement of the metal, both similarly teaches irradiating a metal and glass interface with a laser to produce a bond. Both Rosowski and Abdolvand teach using the same metal (i.e. silver, abstract, [0029], respectively). Additionally, the bond of Rosowski is formed by the absorption of light by the metal interface, and as discussed in the prior art section of the instant application, conventional glass to glass laser bonding methods use thin metal films as an absorbing layer to create heat such that the glass melts and bonds. This is not in contrast to the absorption of energy to create heat and transferring the heat to the glass in the method of Abdolvand. Thus, although the arrangement of the metal and glass is different between Rosowski and Abdolvand, given the similarity between the metal and glass, both using nanosecond pulse laser for bonding, wherein bonding is afforded due to the absorption of energy by the metal and transferring of heat to the glass, and both concern with ensure the bonding does not generate cracks, there would be a reasonable expectation of success in using the laser setting of Abdolvand in the method of Rosowski.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUEENIE S DEHGHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8209. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:30.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/QUEENIE S DEHGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights