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 .
Claim Interpretation
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description and the drawings may be used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims. The reference characters, however, should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. The use of reference characters is to be considered as having no effect on the scope of the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Therefore, to avoid confusion with respect to citations with respect to any prior art reference characters, the reference characters as used in the claims are omitted herein.
Claim 1 and claim 2 are independent claims, each directed to a microstructure made of glass, the microstructure comprising a glass substrate that is exposed by laser-induced modification of the glass substrate and subsequent wet-chemical anisotropic etching (cl. 1, ll. 1 – 4; cl. 2, ll. 1 – 3). Because claims 1 and 2 are directed to the microstructure and not the process itself (e.g. like claim 18), these recitations thus present product-by-process claims
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP § 2112.01, I.
The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. See MPEP § 2113, I.
Claims 1 and 2 are thus interpreted according to these guidelines for their respective recited process limitations and/or implied structures. Claims 3 – 17, 19, and 20 depend, directly or indirectly, on claim 1. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph. Accordingly, claims 3 – 17, 19, and 20 are similarly interpreted for their process limitations and/or implied structures.
Claim 4 refers to “weakly pronounced sidewall scalloping” (l. 2 of the claim). While “weakly” may be considered a term of degree, following the guidelines set forth above, the process limitations of claim 4 are considered to set the bounds for “weakly” based on the structures implied by the process. A similar interpretation is made for claim 9 which refers to “strongly pronounced sidewall scalloping” (l. 3 of the claim).
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.
Claims 5, 9, 14, 16, and 18 – 20 are 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.
Regarding claims 5 – 8, 14, 16, and 19, each of claims 5 – 8, 14, 16, and 19 recites the limitation “The micromechanical microstructure (1) as claimed in claim 1” (ll. 1 – 2 of each claim). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims. More specifically, claim 1 makes no reference to “micromechanical” and thus cannot provide a micromechanical microstructure.
Regarding claims 9 – 13, each of claims 9 – 13 depends directly on claim 8. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph. Accordingly, claims 9 – 13 are each rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the same reasons as claim 8.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites the limitation “the spatial phase position Φ(x)” in l. 10 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites the limitation “The micromechanical microstructure (1) as claimed in claim 3” (ll. 1 – 2 of the claim). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims. More specifically, neither claim 3 nor claim 1 (claim 1 being the base claim of claim 3) reference “micromechanical” and thus cannot provide a micromechanical microstructure.
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) 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.
Claims 1, 2, 14 – 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ortner (US 2018/0215647 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ortner discloses a microstructure made of glass (e.g. Fig. 1 – 22; ¶¶ [0008] – [0124]), the microstructure comprising:
a glass substrate that is exposed by laser-induced modification of the glass substrate and subsequent wet-chemical anisotropic etching (“glass element” exposed by “ultrashort pulse layer” and subsequent “etching medium”, e.g. “glass element” 1 exposed by “ultrashort pulse laser” 30 and subsequent “etching bath”: e.g. Fig. 1 – 22; ¶¶ [0008] – [0124]), in which,
in a deflection region, laser pulses are placed on two mutually opposite tool paths which have a respective maximum distance r perpendicular to a contour of the microstructure, said distance r corresponds to an etching radius of a wet-chemical etching step, and the etching radius lies in a substrate plane of the glass substrate (to form “channels” along the surface of the “glass element”, e.g. “channels” 5: e.g. ¶¶ [0008], [0010] – [0022], [0027] – [0030], [0050], [0051], [0053] – [0064], [0068] – [0079], [0081], [0083], [0084], [0087] – [0090], [0092] – [0094], [0097], [0098], [0100], [0105], [0107], [0122]),
wherein the laser pulses are placed such that a respective spatial phase position Φ(x) of respective laser pulse pairs along a direction of extent of the microstructure within the deflection region is at least in sections, set to be homogeneous (e.g. Fig. 2 – 5 show equal spacing of the laser pulses), wherein
With respect to the spatial phase position Φ(x) of the laser pulse pair being defined as Φ(x) = 360° Δx/p, with Δx being an offset of the two laser pulses of the laser pulse pair in the direction of extent, and p being the pulse distance between two adjacent laser pulses on one of the tool paths, the examiner observes no ranges or values are assigned to either Δx or p, and thus Φ(x) does not have any particular range or value assigned to it. Accordingly, since a pair of laser pulses can be defined from Ortner’s Fig. 2 – 5, the spatial phase position Φ(x) is considered met.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP § 2112.01, I.
The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. See MPEP § 2113, I.
Since Ortner describes the process limitations required, or their implied structures, a prima facie case of anticipation is established.
Regarding claim 2, Ortner discloses a microstructure made of glass (e.g. Fig. 1 – 22; ¶¶ [0008] – [0124]), comprising:
a glass substrate that is exposed by laser-induced modification of the glass substrate and subsequent wet-chemical anisotropic etching (“glass element” exposed by “ultrashort pulse layer” and subsequent “etching medium”, e.g. “glass element” 1 exposed by “ultrashort pulse laser” 30 and subsequent “etching bath”: e.g. Fig. 1 – 22; ¶¶ [0008] – [0124]),
wherein, for producing the microstructure in a deflection region, laser pulses are placed on two mutually opposite tool paths which have a respective maximum distance r perpendicular to a contour along a direction of extent of the microstructure, said distance corresponds to an etching radius of the wet-chemical etching step, wherein the etching radius lies in a substrate plane of the glass substrate (to form “channels” along the surface of the “glass element”, e.g. “channels” 5: e.g. ¶¶ [0008], [0010] – [0022], [0027] – [0030], [0050], [0051], [0053] – [0064], [0068] – [0079], [0081], [0083], [0084], [0087] – [0090], [0092] – [0094], [0097], [0098], [0100], [0105], [0107], [0122]), and
wherein the contour after the wet-chemical exposure has lateral concave indentations, which each have a curvature having the etching radius and which are delimited by respective convex ribs (resulting in “ridges”: e.g. Fig. 2 – 7; ¶¶ [0070], [0071], [0076] – [0079], [0105]), and
wherein the laser pulses are placed such that an extent of a sidewall scalloping of the microstructure is set in a targeted manner in order to improve a homogeneity of mechanical properties of the microstructure or to generate in a targeted manner an inhomogeneity of the mechanical properties of the microstructure (e.g. Fig. 2 – 7; ¶¶ [0070], [0071], [0076] – [0079], [0105]), and
the sidewall scalloping is defined as a ratio ty/r, where r = the local etching radius and ty = a respective lateral depth of the respective indentation (“filament-shaped flaws” 32 are etched into “channels” 5 such that the circularly shaped “flaws” 32 overlap to create the “channels” 5 defined with the “ridges”: e.g. Fig. 2 – 7; ¶¶ [0011], [0013], [0018], [0022], [0026], [0028], [0030], [0051], [0054], [0056], [0057], [0067], [0070], [0071], [0076] – [0079], [0084], [0092], [0093], [0096], [0098], [0105]).
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP § 2112.01, I.
The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. See MPEP § 2113, I.
Since Ortner describes the process limitations required, or their implied structures, a prima facie case of anticipation is established.
Regarding claim 14, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Ortner discloses, for producing the microstructure, in the deflection region, e.g., a maximum pulse distance of 6 µm on the respective tool path is observed (so that a “spacing” between adjacent “filament-shaped flaws” 32 which are later etched to give “channels” 5 does not result in “channels” 5 “go[ing] over into one another during etching”: e.g. ¶¶ [0092] – [0098]).
Regarding claim 15, Ortner discloses a micromechanical system, comprising at least one of the microstructures as discussed with respect to claim 1 (“MEMS components”: e.g. ¶ [0090]).
Regarding claim 16, Ortner discloses, e.g., a micromechanical sensor (“the MEMS components” exemplified by a “pressure sensor”: e.g. ¶ [0090]) comprising: the micromechanical microstructure made of glass as discussed with respect to claim 1, wherein at least one of the phase position Φ(x) or the extent of a sidewall scalloping of the microstructure is set in a targeted manner in order to improve homogeneity of the mechanical properties of the microstructure (e.g. Fig. 2 – 7; ¶¶ [0070], [0071], [0076] – [0079], [0105]).
Regarding claim 18, Ortner discloses a method for producing a micromechanical microstructure made of glass by laser-induced deep etching (LIDE) (e.g. Fig. 1 – 22; ¶¶ [0008] – [0124]), the method comprising:
placing laser pulses in a deflection region of the microstructure on two mutually opposite tool paths, which have a respective distance r from a contour of the microstructure, which distance corresponds to an etching radius of a subsequent wet-chemical etching step (to form “channels” along the surface of the “glass element”, e.g. “channels” 5: e.g. ¶¶ [0008], [0010] – [0022], [0027] – [0030], [0050], [0051], [0053] – [0064], [0068] – [0079], [0081], [0083], [0084], [0087] – [0090], [0092] – [0094], [0097], [0098], [0100], [0105], [0107], [0122]),
wherein the laser pulses are placed on the respective laser line for obtaining at least one of a homogeneous distribution of the spatial phase position Φ(x) (e.g. Fig. 2 – 7) or a homogeneous extent of a sidewall scalloping along a direction of extent of the microstructure (e.g. Fig. 5 – 7), and
exposing the microstructure by wet-chemical etching (e.g. ¶¶ [0012], [0018] – [0021], [0050], [0054], [0055], [0057], [0061] – [0063], [0068], [0007], [0077], [0081], [0083], [0084], [0087] – [0089], [0092], [0097], [0098], [0100], [0105]).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3 – 13, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortner as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Ortner discloses the respective spatial phase position Φ(x) of the respective laser pulse pairs along the direction of extent of the microstructure within the deflection region is Φ(x) = 180°+/- 60° (e.g. ¶¶ [0092] – [0098]).
More specifically, Ortner discloses a pulse distance p between two adjacent laser pulses on one of the tool paths ranging, e.g., no more than 6 µm (so that a “spacing” between adjacent “filament-shaped flaws” 32 which are later etched to give “channels” 5 does not result in “channels” 5 “go[ing] over into one another during etching”: e.g. ¶¶ [0092] – [0098]). Accordingly, the maximum for the offset Δx of the two laser pulses of the laser pulse pair in the direction of extent is no more than 3 µm, i.e. one half of the 6 µm, because an offset Δx of 3.5 µm, for instance, would be observed as symmetric to an offset of Δx 2.5 µm. That is, moving a first laser pulse further from a second laser pulse would move the first laser pulse equally closer to a third laser pulse, thus providing a symmetry.
Accordingly, Φ(x) ranges from
360
°
×
3
μ
m
6
μ
m
=
180
°
to
360
°
×
70
μ
m
3
μ
m
=
840
°
which, due the aforementioned symmetry, corresponds to 180 ° +/- 660°, which encompasses the claimed range. “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Ortner discloses the laser pulses are placed and the microstructure is exposed by etching such that: p < r, where p = a ratio of an average pulse distance between adjacent ones of the laser pulses on one of the two tool paths and r = the etching radius (e.g. ¶¶ [0073], [0092] – [0098]).
Because Ortner commences etching after lasering (e.g. ¶¶ [0012], [0018] – [0021], [0050], [0054], [0055], [0057], [0061] – [0063], [0068], [0007], [0077], [0081], [0083], [0084], [0087] – [0089], [0092], [0097], [0098], [0100], [0105]), the etching radius r must necessarily be larger than the pulse distance p.
More specifically, Ortner discloses an average pulse distance between adjacent ones of the laser pulses on one of the two tool paths p to be no more than 6 µm (so that a “spacing” between adjacent “filament-shaped flaws” 32 which are later etched to give “channels” 5 does not result in “channels” 5 “go[ing] over into one another during etching”: e.g. ¶¶ [0092] – [0098]). Ortner further discloses the etching radius r is less than 100 microns (e.g. ¶ [0073]).
The instant specification considers a p/r > 1:2 to be a strongly pronounced sidewall scalloping and thus those with p/r ≤ 1:2 to be weakly pronounced (e.g. ¶¶ [0054], [0055], [0110] – [0116]). Using the endpoints, a p/r of 0.06, or 1:16.667, is calculated. Because other values of p and r are permitted, Ortner thus discloses a p/r which overlaps that which the specification considers weakly pronounced sidewall scalloping as claimed. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Ortner discloses the local etching radius r is less than 100 µm (e.g. ¶ [0073]). Ortner discloses a pulse distance p between two adjacent laser pulses on one of the tool paths ranging, e.g., no more than 6 µm (so that a “spacing” between adjacent “filament-shaped flaws” 32 which are later etched to give “channels” 5 does not result in “channels” 5 “go[ing] over into one another during etching”: e.g. ¶¶ [0092] – [0098]).
For calculating the lateral depth ty, the examiner refers to Fig. 8 of the instant specification for clarity. In Fig. 8, ty is also the length of a sidewall scallop. Geometrically, both laser pulses will have a radius of r and their centers (as circles) will be separated by the pulse distance p. Drawing a line from the midpoint of where the circles intersect to the center of one circle draws the hypotenuse of a right triangle, where the other leg is one half a chord of length p perpendicular to a length of r – ty, visualized with the sketch below
[AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (p)][AltContent: textbox (r)][AltContent: textbox (r-ty)]
Accordingly, by Pythagorean’s theorem,
r
2
=
(
r
-
t
y
)
2
+
p
2
2
which when rearranged gives
t
y
=
r
-
r
2
-
p
2
2
and yields a value of 0.045 when using the endpoints of p = 6 µm and r = 100 µm, and thus ty/r = 0.00045. Smaller values of r will increase ty above 0.045 and smaller values of r will decrease ty below 0.045, as is permitted given the ranges Ortner gives for p and r, thus establishing overlap with the claim requirement of the contour exhibits lateral concave indentations, which each have a curvature with the etching radius r and which are delimited by respective convex ribs, and
ty/r < 0.1
where r = the local etching radius and ty = a lateral depth of the respective indentations.
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Ortner discloses a respective step angle α, formed by a respective laser pulse pair in the deflection region with respect to the direction of extent, is up to 45° (e.g. ¶¶ [0073], [0092] – [0098]), and
for the step angle α: α = arctan(Δx /Dy), where Δx = an offset of the laser pulses, which form the laser pulse pair, with respect to one another in the direction of extent , and Dy = a distance between the two mutually opposite laser pulses transversely to the direction of extent .
More specifically, Ortner discloses a pulse distance p between two adjacent laser pulses on one of the tool paths ranging, e.g., no more than 6 µm (so that a “spacing” between adjacent “filament-shaped flaws” 32 which are later etched to give “channels” 5 does not result in “channels” 5 “go[ing] over into one another during etching”: e.g. ¶¶ [0092] – [0098]). Accordingly, the maximum for the offset Δx of the two laser pulses of the laser pulse pair in the direction of extent is no more than 3 µm, i.e. one half of the 6 µm, because an offset Δx of 3.5 µm, for instance, would be observed as symmetric to an offset of Δx 2.5 µm. That is, moving a first laser pulse further from a second laser pulse would move the first laser pulse equally closer to a third laser pulse, thus providing a symmetry.
Ortner further discloses Dy is 3 to 70 µm (“pitch”: e.g. ¶ [0073]).
Accordingly, α ranges from arctan(0 µm/70 µm) = 0° to arctan(3 µm/3 µm) = 45°, which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Ortner discloses an average pulse distance between adjacent ones of the laser pulses on one of the two tool paths p to be no more than 6 µm (so that a “spacing” between adjacent “filament-shaped flaws” 32 which are later etched to give “channels” 5 does not result in “channels” 5 “go[ing] over into one another during etching”: e.g. ¶¶ [0092] – [0098]). Because Ortner commences etching after lasering (e.g. ¶¶ [0012], [0018] – [0021], [0050], [0054], [0055], [0057], [0061] – [0063], [0068], [0007], [0077], [0081], [0083], [0084], [0087] – [0089], [0092], [0097], [0098], [0100], [0105]), the maximum width B must necessarily be larger than the pulse distance p. Ortner states the maximum width of the microstructure is less than 100 µm (e.g. ¶ [0073]).
Using the endpoints, Ortner discloses p/B of 0.06, which is within the claimed range. However, because Ortner also discloses a maximum width in a narrower range of 3 to 50 µm (e.g. ¶ [0073]), noting the proviso above that B > p, it is observed the other values for p and B Ortner discloses creates an overlap with the claimed range of p/B ≤ 0.5. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05, I. Additionally, Ortner’s maximum width encompasses the claimed range. “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 8, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Ortner discloses B < 100 µm, where B = a maximum width of the microstructure within the entire deflection region (e.g. ¶ [0073]).
Although Ortner does not specifically state the respective spatial phase position Φ(x) of respective ones of the laser pulse pairs along a direction of extent of the microstructure within the deflection region is Φ(x) = 0°+/- 60°, Ortner’s Fig. 2 – 4 show no offset, and thus Φ(x) = 0° whereas Fig. 5 shows an offset.
Ortner discloses a pulse distance p between two adjacent laser pulses on one of the tool paths ranging, e.g., no more than 6 µm (so that a “spacing” between adjacent “filament-shaped flaws” 32 which are later etched to give “channels” 5 does not result in “channels” 5 “go[ing] over into one another during etching”: e.g. ¶¶ [0092] – [0098]). Accordingly, the maximum for the offset Δx of the two laser pulses of the laser pulse pair in the direction of extent is no more than 3 µm, i.e. one half of the 6 µm, because an offset Δx of 3.5 µm, for instance, would be observed as symmetric to an offset of Δx 2.5 µm. That is, moving a first laser pulse further from a second laser pulse would move the first laser pulse equally closer to a third laser pulse, thus providing a symmetry.
As such, the maximum Φ(x) is 360° * (3 µm/6 µm) = 180°, which due to symmetry as previously discussed is actually ±180°, which encompasses the claimed range. “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the limitations of claim 8, Ortner discloses the laser pulses are placed and the microstructure is exposed by etching such that: p/r > 1:2, where p = an average pulse distance p between adjacent ones of the laser pulses on one of the two tool paths and r = the etching radius (e.g. ¶¶ [0073], [0092] – [0098]).
Because Ortner commences etching after lasering (e.g. ¶¶ [0012], [0018] – [0021], [0050], [0054], [0055], [0057], [0061] – [0063], [0068], [0007], [0077], [0081], [0083], [0084], [0087] – [0089], [0092], [0097], [0098], [0100], [0105]), the etching radius r must necessarily be larger than the pulse distance p.
More specifically, Ortner discloses an average pulse distance between adjacent ones of the laser pulses on one of the two tool paths p to be no more than 6 µm (so that a “spacing” between adjacent “filament-shaped flaws” 32 which are later etched to give “channels” 5 does not result in “channels” 5 “go[ing] over into one another during etching”: e.g. ¶¶ [0092] – [0098]). Ortner further discloses the etching radius r is less than 100 µm, e.g. 3 to 50 µm (e.g. ¶ [0073]).
Because Ortner commences etching after lasering (e.g. ¶¶ [0012], [0018] – [0021], [0050], [0054], [0055], [0057], [0061] – [0063], [0068], [0007], [0077], [0081], [0083], [0084], [0087] – [0089], [0092], [0097], [0098], [0100], [0105]), the etching radius r must necessarily be larger than the pulse distance p. As such, given the exemplary narrow range Ortner gives for the etching radius, an upper bound for p/r < 1, and thus overlaps the claimed range of p/r > 1:2, i.e. 0.5. Accordingly, in this overlap, there is strongly pronounced sidewall scalloping.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the limitations of claim 8, Ortner discloses the local etching radius r is less than 100 µm (e.g. ¶ [0073]). Ortner discloses a pulse distance p between two adjacent laser pulses on one of the tool paths ranging, e.g., no more than 6 µm (so that a “spacing” between adjacent “filament-shaped flaws” 32 which are later etched to give “channels” 5 does not result in “channels” 5 “go[ing] over into one another during etching”: e.g. ¶¶ [0092] – [0098]).
For calculating the lateral depth ty, the examiner refers to Fig. 8 of the instant specification for clarity. In Fig. 8, ty is also the length of a sidewall scallop. Geometrically, both laser pulses will have a radius of r and their centers (as circles) will be separated by the pulse distance p. Drawing a line from the midpoint of where the circles intersect to the center of one circle draws the hypotenuse of a right triangle, where the other leg is one half a chord of length p perpendicular to a length of r – ty, visualized with the sketch below
[AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (p)][AltContent: textbox (r)][AltContent: textbox (r-ty)]
Accordingly, by Pythagorean’s theorem,
r
2
=
(
r
-
t
y
)
2
+
p
2
2
which when rearranged gives
t
y
=
r
-
r
2
-
p
2
2
and yields a value of 0.045 µm when using the endpoints of p = 6 µm and r = 100 µm, and thus ty/r = 0.00045. Smaller values of r will increase ty above 0.045 and smaller values of r will decrease ty below 0.045, as is permitted given the ranges Ortner gives for p and r.
Because Ortner commences etching after lasering (e.g. ¶¶ [0012], [0018] – [0021], [0050], [0054], [0055], [0057], [0061] – [0063], [0068], [0007], [0077], [0081], [0083], [0084], [0087] – [0089], [0092], [0097], [0098], [0100], [0105]), the etching radius r must necessarily be larger than the pulse distance p. The equation for ty requires this, otherwise the argument under the square root becomes negative and therefore is nonsensical for discussions of length in the context of claim 10.
Given Ortner offers a narrower range of 3 to 50 µm for the radius r (e.g. ¶ [0073]), noting the previous observations of r and p, the endpoints of p = 6 µm and r = 6 µm give ty = 0.804 µm and thus ty/r = 0.134. Deviating from either endpoint as described before will give values of ty/r above or below 0.134, thus establishing an overlap with the claim requirement of the contour having lateral concave indentations, which each have a curvature with the etching radius and which are delimited by respective convex ribs, and
ty/r > 0.1, where r =the etching radius and ty = a lateral depth of the respective indentations. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the limitations of claim 8, Ortner discloses a respective step angle α, which is formed by a respective one of the laser pulse pairs in the deflection region with respect to the direction of extent, is up to 45° (e.g. ¶¶ [0073], [0092] – [0098]).
Here, though claim 11 does not recite so, the examiner uses the definition from ¶ [0047] of the instant specification where the step angle α is such that α = arctan(Δx /Dy), where Δx = an offset of the laser pulses, which form the laser pulse pair, with respect to one another in the direction of extent , and Dy = a distance between the two mutually opposite laser pulses transversely to the direction of extent .
To this end, Ortner discloses a pulse distance p between two adjacent laser pulses on one of the tool paths ranging, e.g., no more than 6 µm (so that a “spacing” between adjacent “filament-shaped flaws” 32 which are later etched to give “channels” 5 does not result in “channels” 5 “go[ing] over into one another during etching”: e.g. ¶¶ [0092] – [0098]). Accordingly, the maximum for the offset Δx of the two laser pulses of the laser pulse pair in the direction of extent is no more than 3 µm, i.e. one half of the 6 µm, because an offset Δx of 3.5 µm, for instance, would be observed as symmetric to an offset of Δx 2.5 µm. That is, moving a first laser pulse further from a second laser pulse would move the first laser pulse equally closer to a third laser pulse, thus providing a symmetry.
Ortner further discloses Dy is 3 to 70 µm (“pitch”: e.g. ¶ [0073]).
Accordingly, α ranges from arctan(0 µm/70 µm) = 0° to arctan(3 µm/3 µm) = 45°, which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 12, in addition to the limitations of claim 8, Ortner discloses p/B > 0.5, where p = a pulse distance between two adjacent ones of the laser pulses on one of the two tool paths and B = a maximum width of the microstructure transversely to the direction of extent, and
the maximum width of the microstructure is less than 100 µm, e.g. 3 to 50 µm (e.g. ¶ [0073]).
More specifically, Ortner discloses a pulse distance p between two adjacent laser pulses on one of the tool paths ranging, e.g., no more than 6 µm (so that a “spacing” between adjacent “filament-shaped flaws” 32 which are later etched to give “channels” 5 does not result in “channels” 5 “go[ing] over into one another during etching”: e.g. ¶¶ [0092] – [0098]). Because Ortner commences etching after lasering (e.g. ¶¶ [0012], [0018] – [0021], [0050], [0054], [0055], [0057], [0061] – [0063], [0068], [0007], [0077], [0081], [0083], [0084], [0087] – [0089], [0092], [0097], [0098], [0100], [0105]), the maximum width B must necessarily be larger than the pulse distance p. Given the narrow range for B set forth above relative to the range for p, it is observed p/B < 1, which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 13, in addition to the limitations of claim 8, Ortner discloses the mutually opposite tool paths
- run approximately or strictly parallel to one another (e.g. Fig. 6, 7, 15), or
- enclose an angle (e.g. Fig. 2 – 5), or
- follow a respective curve (e.g. Fig. 16, 17).
Regarding claim 17, Ortner discloses, e.g., a micromechanical sensor (as an example of a “MEMS component”: e.g. ¶ [0090]) comprising the micromechanical microstructure made of glass as discussed with respect to claim 8, wherein at least one of the phase position Φ(x) or the extent of a sidewall scalloping of the microstructure is set in a targeted manner in order to generate an inhomogeneity of the mechanical properties of the microstructure, which is exploited with respect to the sensor (e.g. Fig. 2 – 7; ¶¶ [0070], [0071], [0076] – [0079], [0105]).
Regarding claim 19, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Ortner discloses a pulse distance p between two adjacent laser pulses on one of the tool paths ranging, e.g., no more than 6 µm (so that a “spacing” between adjacent “filament-shaped flaws” 32 which are later etched to give “channels” 5 does not result in “channels” 5 “go[ing] over into one another during etching”: e.g. ¶¶ [0092] – [0098]). Accordingly, the maximum for the offset Δx of the two laser pulses of the laser pulse pair in the direction of extent is no more than 3 µm, i.e. one half of the 6 µm, because an offset Δx of 3.5 µm, for instance, would be observed as symmetric to an offset of Δx 2.5 µm. That is, moving a first laser pulse further from a second laser pulse would move the first laser pulse equally closer to a third laser pulse, thus providing a symmetry.
As such, the phase position Φ(x) along the direction of extent fluctuates by less than +/- 180°, which encompasses the claimed range. “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 20, in addition to the limitations of claim 3, Ortner discloses B < 100 µm, where B = a maximum width of the microstructure within the entire deflection region (e.g. ¶ [0073]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN A UTT whose telephone number is (571)270-0356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Central.
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, 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.
/ETHAN A. UTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
