DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on June 8, 2026 is acknowledged.
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 5-6 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 5 recites the perforations measure between 1 µm and 10 µm. It is unclear how the perforations are measured, i.e. diameter, length, etc.
Claim 6 is also considered indefiniteness by virtue of its dependency on claim 5.
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)(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 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ortner et al. (2023/0311248). Regarding claim 1, Ortner discloses a method for producing an opening in a glass component, comprising providing for a glass blank ([0032]), defining a geometry of an opening and cutting the opening in the form of a contour by a laser filamentation method ([0033]), and separating the glass component containing the opening from the scrap resulting from the filamentation method by chemical etching ([0072], [0075], fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Ortner teaches an infrared picosecond laser is used with a frequency in the range of 3kHz and 200kHz, which overlaps with the claimed range of 170 and 1000 kHz ([0039]), and pulse duration of less than 15 ps ([0044]).
Regarding claim 4, the filamentation method produces perforations in the glass with a wavelength of about 1064 nm ([0039]).
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ryu et al. (KR 20230158380 machine translation provided). Regarding claim 1, Ryu discloses a method for producing an opening in a glass component, comprising providing for a glass blank (bottom of page 5), defining a geometry of an opening (“shape corresponding to the through hole” at bottom of page 7) and cutting the opening in the form of a contour by a laser filamentation method (4th passage on page 6, 6th – 7th passages on page 7), and separating the glass component containing the opening from the scrap resulting from the filamentation method by chemical etching (page 10).
Regarding claim 2, Ryu further teaches the laser filamentation method is carried out using a picosecond laser (2nd passage on page 6) whose beam is focused by a conical Bessel lens (5th passage on page 6).
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.
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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortner et al. (2023/0311248) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (2021/0371327). Ortner teaches the filamentation method produces perforations in the glass that are spaced apart between 5 µm - 15 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 2 µm - 20 µm, and the claimed range of 5 µm - 7 µm ([0045], [0071]). However, Ortner is silent regarding the diameter of the perforations. Suzuki similarly teaches a filamentation process for producing filaments in a glass substrate using a picosecond laser ([0093]). Suzuki teaches the filamentation process typically produces filaments having a diameter in the range of 1 to 5 µm ([0005]), i.e. 3 µm ([0044]), which falls within the claimed range of 1 µm and 10 µm, and are spaced apart between 3-5 µm ([0044]), which falls within the claimed range of 5 µm - 7 µm. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have expected the filamentation process of Ortner to also provide for filaments having a diameter in the range of 1 to 5 µm, as Suzuki teaches it is to be expected and both Ortner and Suzuki similarly utilizes picosecond lasers for filamentation.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortner et al. (2023/0311248) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bowden et al. (2019/0144325). Ortner teaches the glass is a borosilicate glass ([0031]), and the glass having a thermal coefficient of expansion of at least 2 x 10-6 K-1 ([0089]), which is similar to that of a silicon wafer, but doesn’t offer specifics. Bowden teaches a picosecond laser method for cutting contours from glass substrates ([0100]-[0101]). Bowen also teaches the glass is preferably free of alkali metals, such as an alkali free aluminoborosilicate glass. Bowen further teaches the glass is free of arsenic and antimony ([0129]) and has a coefficient of thermal expansion in the range of 30 x 10-7 /°C - 36 x 10-7 /°C ([0127]), which is similar to that of a silicon wafer. Bowen teaches such glass are suitable for laser processing with a picosecond laser and being free of the alkali metals and contaminants will prevent chemical contamination and poisoning of other layers placed on the glass. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have similarly used an aluminoborosilicate glass that does not have alkali, arsenic, antimony, and a CTE similar to that of silicon wafers, for the glass substrate of Ortner, as Bowden teaches it is suitable for processing with a picosecond laser, while preventing contamination of other layers applied to the glass when in use.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortner et al. (2023/0311248) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (CN 116477850 machine translation provided). Ortner teaches chemical etching is carried out in an alkaline solution, and at a temperature of about 100°C, which falls within the claimed range of 80°C and 120°C ([0073]). Ortner suggests a duration of 10 hours, but doesn’t specify a duration of less than that. Huang teaches a picosecond laser processing method for a glass substrate for creating filament in the glass substrate (2nd passage on page 9). Huang also teaches a subsequent step of etching the filaments using either an acidic or an alkaline solution (5th passage on page 9). Huang further teaches etching time is a result effective variable for controlling the depth of the etching (6th -7th passages on page 9) and recommends etching for a time period of 1-8 hours is sufficient when using an alkaline solution for etching (9th- 10th passages on page 11), which overlaps with the claimed range of 3 and 8 hours. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided etching for a time period in the range of 1-8 hours, when using an alkaline etching solution, as Huang teaches it is predictably provides for the successful etching of laser processed filaments.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortner et al. (2023/0311248) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sauer et al. (EP 0 872 783 machine translation provided). Ortner teaches the glass is suitable for use in electronic applications ([0031]), but doesn’t specify a timepiece. Sauer teaches a known timepiece, such as a solar cell dial, is typically made by providing a glass substrate having an opening (“substrate made of glass” at bottom of page 10), depositing a solar cell on the glass substrate to produce a photovoltaic watch dial, wherein the solar cell is a thin film solar cell (“thin layers”) that is deposited directly on the glass, thus being attached to the glass (abstract, 5th- 6th passages on page 3, figs. 1-3). Sauer teaches the glass substrate should be transparent (3rd passage on page 3) and comprise of a center opening 16 (10th passage on page 4). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have further attached a thin film solar cell by deposition to the glass substrate of Ortner, thereby producing a photovoltaic watch dial, as Ortner provides for a transparent glass piece with a precise opening suitable for such use.
Conclusion
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