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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and now-canceled 2 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1 and 3-6 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 1 recites “a precipitate having precipitated in the etching step under a state in which the glass sheet Is taken out of the etchant”. The limitation implies that the glass sheet is taken out of the etchant, though there is no express step of removing the glass sheet from the etchant. It is advised to reword the claim such that there is definitive immersion and removal of the glass sheet from the etchant as taught by the instant specification. Though the wording of the limitation also implies that the precipitate is a reaction as the glass dries after being etched, [0048] of the instant specification is clear that the precipitate reaction is due to the etchant and the glass, and not activated by the removal of the glass sheet from the etchant. This causes antecedent basis issue because if there is no specific removal of the glass sheet from the etchant, then no precipitate forms/would be present. Dependent claims 3-6 are rejected because they depend from and thus include all the limitations of claim 1 and do not solve the deficiencies thereof.
Claim 1 recites “a poorly-soluble precipitate”. “poorly-soluble” is a relative term. There is no metes or bounds to what classifies as “poorly soluble”. Additionally, poorly soluble in what context?
Claim 1 recites the etching step in three “stages” which is not the same language used by the instant specification. There is implication that from a single immersion, the glass sheet undergoes the three stages, though the instant specification does not mean for this interpretation. The limitation should be rewritten to state “a plurality of immersion steps” or similar language that is supported by the specification. Should the Applicant disagree, the prior interpretation could alternatively be considered as a written description rejection.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui et al (CN-113045209-A, English translation provided by Espacenet) and further in view of Bazemore et al (US-20190107751-A1) and Huang et al (US-20180342450-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cui teaches a method of manufacturing a glass sheet having a first main surface, a second main surface, and a through hole (Line 130, flat glass having a first main surface and a second main surface with a through hole) that penetrates between the first main surface and the second main surface (Fig. 3-4), the method comprising: a modification step of modifying a preset formation part for the through hole by irradiation with laser light (Line 47, 100-102); and a through hole formation step of forming the through hole in the preset formation part after the modification step (Line 49-53), wherein the through hole formation step comprises: an etching step of etching the glass sheet with an etchant (Line 49).
Cui teaches of a removal step of removing residue and residual etchant from the etched glass (Line 52-53). Cui does not expressly teach the residue is a precipitate from etching process. In related etching of glass art, Bazemore teaches etching generates insoluble precipitates on the surface of the glass [0063]; the etched glass is then soaked/immersed in an acidic cleaning solution to remove the precipitates [0072, 78], the precipitates are water soluble in the acidic cleaning solution [0066]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a precipitate removal step to remove precipitates generated from etching that are soluble in an acid solution is a known technique to form finer features on glass [0072].
Cui teaches etching the irradiated glass to form the through hole (Line 49-50). Cui does not expressly teach the etching proceeds in stages. In the same field of endeavor, Huang teaches the etching comprises a first stage of forming a bottomed recessed portion that does not penetrate in a thickness direction in the preset formation part (Fig. 5B, after etch 1), a second stage of forming an intermediate through hole (Fig. 5B, after etch 2), and a third stage of expanding the hole diameter of the intermediate through hole to form the through hole (Fig. 5B, after etch 3). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform a plurality of etching steps on the preset formation part to form a bottomed recessed portion, followed by an intermediate through hole, and followed by an increased diameter through hole is known in the art.
Modified Cui does not expressly teach when the precipitate removal step occurs. Cui teaches of adding a surfactant to the etchant such that precipitates do not reattach to the glass surface (Line 148-156). Bazemore teaches the precipitate forms on the surface of the etched glass [0063] which requires the precipitate removal step [0072]. Huang teaches of rinsing the substrate after every etching immersion (Fig. 10). It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 ( Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when using an etchant without a surfactant, such that precipitates of the etched glass reattached to the surface of the etched regions, to use the cleaning/acid solution of Bazemore after each etching step to remove the undesired, attached precipitate.
Regarding claim 3, depending from claim 1, modified Cui relies on the precipitate removal step taught by Bazemore wherein H2SO4 is the acid solution [0072].
Regarding claim 4/6, depending from claim 1, modified Cui incorporates the precipitate washing/removal taught by Bazemore and the plurality of etching steps and rinsing steps of Huang, wherein the rinsing steps are equivalent to the precipitate removal step.
Regarding claim 5, depending from claim 1, Cui teaches that the through hole formation step comprises preforming the precipitate removal step (Line 207-209; and optionally drying precipitate removed glass).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO-2021092361-A1, US-202000354262-A1 teaches irradiating a damage track, HF etching forming a precipitate, combining HF with HCl/HNO3/H2SO4 to the HF etching solution to reduce the precipitate reaction
CN-110573470-A teaches using laser drilling and a HF/HNO3 etchant
CN-110156338-A teaches an acid etching solution comprising HF/HCl/HNO3/H2SO4
US-20190107751-A1 teaches of using HF with either HCl or H2SO4 for an etching solution and use a H2SO4 solution to remove precipitates from the etching solution
CN-105924016-A teaches adding HCl and/or H2SO4 to a HF etching solution so precipitate would not form on the glass
US-20110079931-A teaches of first pre-treating glass with HCl/HNO3/H2SO4 followed by a HF etch
CN-1891651-A teaches of a HF/HNO3 etching solution followed by an alkaline washing step
US-20020067459-A1 teaches adding sulfuric acid to a HF etching solution suppresses precipitation on the glass
JP-2000313629-A teaches laser irradiating a target area that precipitates after etching, the precipitated region is etched away
US-20200354262-A1 teaches of laser irradiating a target area that is etched to form a through-hole, the etchant is prepared to not precipitate
US-20180342451-A1, US-20150060402-A1 teaches the stages of the through-hole formation (Fig. 4/5)
US-20150122779-A1 teaches of alternative means to reduce precipitation during etching
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 STEVEN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2645. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm Mon-Thurs.
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.
/STEVEN S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights