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 with traverse of claims 1-10, 14-16, 18-20 in the reply filed on June 16, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue burden caused by searching and examining the entire set of claims, and a proper search and examination of claim 11 will encompass the subject matter of claim 1. This is not found persuasive because claim 11 is directed to a method of making a wafer-like sensor, while claim 1 is directed to a wafer-like substrate having two glass layers.
As specified in the restriction requirement, the two groups of claims are classified in different areas, and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter, the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification, and require a different field of search.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 recites the limitation “the wafer” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner notes the claim was considered for examination purposes as reciting “The wafer-like substrate of claim 1…”
Claim 9 recites “a recess having a thickness…” The claim is not clear. The Examiner notes the claim was considered for examination purposes as reciting “a recess having “a depth.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9, 14-16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharratt et al. (US 9719867 B2) (“Sharratt”), in view of Fisher et al. (US 2016/0082705 A1) (“Fisher”).
With respect to claim 1, Sharratt discloses a wafer-like substrate (abstr.), substrate – element 102 is formed of glass (col. 4, lines 61-65), the substrate including an upper annular portion formed of glass (col. 4, lines 61-65, Fig. 1D), and a lower portion formed of glass (col. 4, lines 61-65, Fig. 1D), but Sharratt is silent regarding an upper annular layer and the lower annual layer being formed of a chemically-hardened glass and chemically bonded as recited in the claim. Fisher discloses glass structures formed of glass layers that are chemically-hardened and chemically bonded to each other (0022, 0023). Fisher’s glass structures can be used in electronic applications (0075). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the substrate of Sharratt of an upper annular layer formed of chemically-hardened glass and a lower layer formed of a chemically-hardened glass, the layers being chemically bonded as the structure of Fisher is suitable for electronic applications, the substrate of Sharratt suitable for electronic applications (col. 7, lines 51-57)
Regarding claim 2, Sharratt and Fisher teach the substrate of claim 1. Sharratt and Fisher disclose the upper annual layer has an inner perimeter defining a region configured to seat an electronics module (Sharratt, col. 8, lines 61-67, col. 9, lines 1-21, Figs. 1C and 1D).
As to claim 3, Sharratt and Fisher teach the substrate of claim 1. Fisher discloses a thickness of a glass layer of less than 2 mm (0011), the thickness within the recited range; thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the upper annular layer in the substrate of Sharratt and Fisher has a thickness as disclosed in Fisher.
With respect to claim 4, Sharratt and Fisher teach the substrate of claim 1. Fisher discloses a thickness of a glass layer of less than 2 mm (0011), the thickness within the recited range; thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the lower layer in the substrate of Sharratt and Fisher has a thickness as disclosed in Fisher.
As to claim 9, Sharratt and Fisher teach the substrate of claim 1. Since Fisher discloses a thickness of a glass layer of less than 2 mm (0011), which is within the recited range, and a recess is formed within the lower glass layer (Sharratt, Figs. 1A and 1C), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the recess having a depth as disclosed in Fisher.
Regarding claim 14, Sharratt and Fisher teach the substrate of claim 1. Sharratt discloses the upper annular layer and the lower layer form a recess (Figs. 1C and 1D).
As to claim 15. Sharratt and Fisher teach the substrate of claim 14. Sharratt discloses the recess is positioned proximate a center of the lower layer (Fig. 1D).
With respect to claim 16, Sharratt and Fisher teach the substrate of claim 14. Sharratt discloses a housing disposed within the recess – elements 104 and 106 were interpreted as the housing (col. 5, lines 18-23, Figs, 1A and 1C).
Regarding claim 18, Sharratt and Fisher teach the substrate of claim 16. Sharratt discloses a sensor disposed within the housing – elements 108 and 110 (col. 5, lines 9-13, col. 9, lines 53-64, Figs. 1A and 1C).
As to claim 19, Sharratt and Fisher teach the substrate of claim 1. Fisher discloses the glass layers used in electronic devices are transparent (0003), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the wafer-like substrate of Sharratt and Fisher including a transparent portion as it is known in the art of electronic devices to use transparent glass layers.
With respect to claim 20, Sharratt and Fisher teach the substrate of claim 19. Since Fisher discloses the glass layers used in electronic devices are transparent (0003), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the transparent portion is proximate a housing – corresponding to elements 104 and 106 disposed within a recess formed by the annular and lower layer (Figs 1A and 1C).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharratt, in view of Fisher, and further in view of Henry (US 2013/0186141 A1).
With respect to claim 5, Sharratt and Fisher teach the substrate of claim 1, but are silent with respect to an opaque coating interposed between the upper annular layer and the lower layer. Henry discloses a chemically-hardened glass comprising an opaque coating for functional purposes (abstr., 0003-0007, Table, p. 5) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an opaque coating interposed between the upper annular layer and the lower layer for functional purposes.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharratt, in view of Fisher, and further in view of Schwartz et al. (US 2012/02229419 A1) (“Schwartz”).
With respect to claim 6, Sharratt and Fisher teach the substrate of claim 1, but are silent with respect to an anti-shatter layer interposed between the upper annular layer and the lower layer. Schwartz discloses an electronic device comprising an anti-shatter film between two glass layers (0049). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an anti-shatter layer interposed between the upper annular layer and the lower layer to prevent the glass layers from shattering.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharratt, in view of Fisher, and further in view of Renken et al. (US 2007/0046284 A1) (“Renken”).
Regarding claim 7, Sharratt and Fisher teach the substrate of claim 1, but are silent regarding an outer perimeter of the upper annular layer having a SEMI notch. Renken discloses a wafer-like sensor (abstr.), wherein the wafer is formed according to industry standards established by SEMI and includes a notch (0095, 0097). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an outer perimeter of the upper annular layer of the substrate of Sharratt and Fisher with a SEMI notch, as it is known in the art of wafer-like sensors to include a layer having a SEMI notch.
Regarding claim 8, Sharratt and Fisher teach the substrate of claim 1, but are silent regarding an outer perimeter of the lower layer having a SEMI notch. Renken discloses a wafer-like sensor (abstr.), wherein the wafer is formed according to industry standards established by SEMI and includes a notch (0095, 0097). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an outer perimeter of the lower layer of the substrate of Sharratt and Fisher with a SEMI notch, as it is known in the art of wafer-like sensors to include a layer having a SEMI notch.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharratt, in view of Fisher, and further in view of Kathman et al. (US 2008/0136955 A1) (“Kathman”).
With respect to claim 10, Sharratt and Fisher teach the substrate of claim 1. The references are silent regarding the upper annular layer being chemically bonded to the lower layer with epoxy. Kathman discloses bonding glass wafer substrates with epoxy (0108). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to bond the upper annular layer to the lower layer with epoxy in the substrate of Sharratt and Fisher, as it is known in the art of glass wafer substrates to use epoxy for bonding. It has been held to select a known material based for its suitability for its intended use to be an obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOANNA PLESZCZYNSKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~ 11:30-8.
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 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.
/Joanna Pleszczynska/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights