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
Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election of Group II, claims 11-20 was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 16, 2026.
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 12, 14-17 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.
Claim 12 is rejected because the claim recites “at least one of (a), (b), (c),
(d), (e), or (f) below:” but there are no a, b, c, d, e or f choices following. Instead, the claims lists (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v) or (vi).
For examination, the claim will be interpreted as only requiring one of the roman numeral choices listed.
Claim 14 is rejected because the claim recites “at least one of (g), (h), (i),
or (j) below:” but there are no g, h, I or j choices following. Instead, the claims lists (vii), (viii), (ix), or (x).
For examination, the claim will be interpreted as only requiring one of the roman numeral choices listed.
Claim 15 is rejected because the claim recites “at least one of (k), (l), (m),
(n), or (o) below:” but there are no k, l, m, n or o choices following. Instead, the claims lists (xi), (xii), (xiii), (xiv), (xv).
For examination, the claim will be interpreted as only requiring one of the roman numeral choices listed.
Claim 16 is rejected because the claim recites “at least one of (p), (q),
or (r) below:” but there are no p, q or r choices following. Instead, the claims lists (xvi), (xvii), (xviii).
For examination, the claim will be interpreted as only requiring one of the roman numeral choices listed.
Claim 17 is rejected because the claim recites “at least one of (s), (t), (u),
(v), (w), or (x) below:” but there are no s, t, u, v, w or x choices following. Instead, the claims lists (xix), (xx), (xxi), (xxii), (xxiii) or (xxiv).
For examination, the claim will be interpreted as only requiring one of the roman numeral choices listed.
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) 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPub20180105452 or alternatively, USPub20180105452 in view of any one of USPub20240400441, WO2024249043 or USPub20240246850 (all having a priority date earlier than that of the present Application).
Regarding claim 11: ‘452 teaches a glass composite article comprising a first glass substrate 110 and a second glass substrate 120 stack sealed to the first glass at an interface (see Figures, 0027).
Regarding the peak-to-valley difference of a hydroxyl group concentration limitations recited, it is initially noted that the language “or” in line 4 of the claim only requires one of the peak-to-valley difference of a hydroxyl group concentration requirements to be met.
More specifically, the glass only needs to have a peak-to-valley difference of a hydroxyl group concentration of ≤30ppm along a first line perpendicular to the interface extending between a depth in the first glass substrate to the interface wherein the concentration being measured is at a spacing of ≤0.1mm, along a second line perpendicular to the interface extending between a depth in the second glass to the interface wherein the concentration being measured is at a spacing of ≤0.1mm “or” along a third line perpendicular to the interface as claimed extending between a depth of the first substrate the interface and the depth of the second substrate and the interface wherein the concentration being measured is at a spacing of ≤0.1mm.
Further note for the record that the limitation seems to related to how much hydroxyl group concentration varies in the thickness direction from a depth in the first glass to the interface, a depth in the second glass to the interface or depths in both the first and second glasses to the interface and the OH variation in the thickness direction being ≤30ppm wherein the variation is measured at ≤0.1mm spacing intervals.
In the instant case, ‘452’s second glass 120 includes a dopant which can be a hydroxy group (0016) and ‘452 teaches that their second glass 120 has a uniform composition in which through the thickness of the second glass 120 (i.e. this corresponds to the recited second line perpendicular to the interface extending between a depth in the second glass to the interface), variation of dopant (i.e. hydroxyl group) concentration should be less than 0.2wt% (<2,000ppm) (0016).
Note that given that the taught variation is through the thickness and ‘452 teaches their glass composition being uniform, one skilled in the art would reasonably expect/conclude that the taught variation would be present uniformly throughout the thickness including at all spacings in the thickness direction. Specifically, ‘452’s second glass 120 thickness is at least 1inch (25.4mm) (0013) and one skilled in the art would reasonably expect/conclude that all spacings (i.e. 0.1mm, 0.2mm, 0.3mm, 0.4mm, 0.5mm etc.) in the thickness direction would have the taught OH concentration variation of less than 0.2wt% (<2,000ppm).
The variation of dopant (hydroxyl) concentration being less than 0.2wt% (<2,000ppm) overlaps the claimed ≤30ppm rendering the claim obvious (MPEP 2144.05).
In the instance Applicants argue that ‘452’s taught range of less than 0.2wt% (<2,000ppm) is too broad to render the claimed range obvious, the Examiner additionally notes that differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, note that given that ‘452 explicitly teaches the desire for their glass to have uniformity, it would have been obvious and well within the skill in the art to reduce the variation of components of ‘452’s glass composition (i.e. including the OH therein) as much as possible, including that of zero, for improved uniformity.
Even further in the alternative, note that ‘452’s second glass is a EUV low expansion silica-titania glass containing OH groups wherein uniformity of the OH is desired.
Given that ‘441, ‘043 and ‘850, who each similarly teach EUV low expansion silica-titania glass containing OH groups, suggest it being desirable for OH to be uniform with desirable variations being less than 30ppm (0125 in ‘441, 0124 in ‘043, abstract, 0083-0084 in ‘850) and even 5ppm (0125 in ‘441 and 0124 in ‘043), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify ‘452 to include OH variations in the thickness of ‘452’s second glass being less than 30ppm and even 5ppm for uniformity.
Regarding claim 12: As discussed above, 452’s second glass 120 includes hydroxyl group dopant wherein the second glass 120 has a uniform composition in which through the thickness of the second glass 120 (i.e. this corresponds to the recited second line perpendicular to the interface extending between a depth in the second glass to the interface), variation of dopant (i.e. hydroxyl group) concentration is less than 0.2wt% (<2,000ppm) (0016).
Given that ‘452 dopant (hydroxyl group) concentration in the glass is 1-10wt% (10,000-100,000ppm) or even 1-6wt% (10,000-60,000ppm) (0016) and will only vary from this concentration by less than 0.2wt% (<2,000ppm) through the thickness (which will include the depth mentioned above), limitation (vi) will be expected to be met.
Regarding claim 13: As discussed above, 452’s second glass 120 thickness is at least 1inch (25.4mm) wherein the composition is uniform with the taught OH concentration variation being maintained at less than 0.2wt% (<2,000ppm) through the thickness which would be expected to include such variation at all depths/spacings (i.e. 0.1mm, 0.2mm, 0.3mm, 0.4mm, 0.5mm etc.) in the thickness direction to the interface.
Regarding claim 14: As discussed above, 452’s second glass 120 thickness is at least 1inch (25.4mm) meeting limitation (ix).
However, it is additionally noted that ‘452 teaches the overall glass article can have a thickness of 2-14inches (i.e. 50.8-355.6mm) (0014) meeting limitation (vii).
Regarding claim 15: Similar to the hydroxyl discussion from claim 1, with regard to the peak-to-valley difference of a titania concentration limitations recited, it is initially noted that the language “or” in line 4 of the claim only requires one of the peak-to-valley difference of a titania concentration requirements to be met.
More specifically, the glass only needs to have a peak-to-valley difference of a titania concentration of ≥30ppm along a fourth line perpendicular to the interface extending between a depth in the first glass substrate to the interface wherein the concentration being measured is at a spacing of ≤0.1mm, along a fifth line perpendicular to the interface extending between a depth in the second glass to the interface wherein the concentration being measured is at a spacing of ≤0.1mm “or” along a sixth line perpendicular to the interface as claimed extending between a depth of the first substrate the interface and the depth of the second substrate and the interface wherein the concentration being measured is at a spacing of ≤0.1mm.
Further note for the record that the limitation seems to be related to how much titania concentration varies in the thickness direction from a depth in the first glass to the interface, a depth in the second glass to the interface or depths in both the first and second glasses to the interface and the titania variation in the thickness direction being ≥30ppm wherein the variation is measured at ≤0.1mm spacing intervals.
In the instant case, ‘452’s second glass 120 includes titania (0016) and ‘452 teaches that their second glass 120 has a uniform composition in which through the thickness of the second glass 120 (i.e. this corresponds to the recited fifth line perpendicular to the interface extending between a depth in the second glass to the interface), variation of titania concentration should be less than 0.2wt% (<2,000ppm) (0016).
Note that given that the taught variation is through the thickness and ‘452 teaches their glass composition being uniform, one skilled in the art would reasonably expect/conclude that the taught variation would be present uniformly throughout the thickness including at all spacings in the thickness direction. Specifically, ‘452’s second glass 120 thickness is at least 1inch (25.4mm) (0013) and one skilled in the art would reasonably expect/conclude that all spacings (i.e. 0.1mm, 0.2mm, 0.3mm, 0.4mm, 0.5mm etc.) in the thickness direction would have the taught titania concentration variation of less than 0.2wt% (<2,000ppm).
The variation of titania concentration being less than 0.2wt% (<2,000ppm) overlaps the claimed ≥30ppm and limitation (xi) rendering the claim obvious (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 16 and 17: Similar to discussions above, with regard to the peak-to-valley difference of a CTE slope and expansivity slope limitations recited, it is initially noted that the language “or” in line 3 of claim 16 and line 2 of claim 17 only requires one of the peak-to-valley difference requirements to be met.
More specifically, regarding claim 16, the glass only needs to have a peak-to-valley difference of a CTE slope ≤0.1ppb/K2 measured at 20oC along a seventh line perpendicular to the interface extending between a depth in the first glass substrate to the interface wherein the slope is measured is at a spacing of ≤0.1mm, along an eight line perpendicular to the interface extending between a depth in the second glass to the interface wherein the slope is measured is at a spacing of ≤0.1mm “or” along a ninth line perpendicular to the interface as claimed extending between a depth of the first substrate the interface and the depth of the second substrate and the interface wherein the slope being measured is at a spacing of ≤0.1mm.
Regarding claim 17, the glass only needs to have a peak-to-valley difference of a expansivity slope ≤2ppb/K2, ≤1ppb/K2 or ≤0.5ppb/K2 measured at 20oC along a tenth line perpendicular to the interface extending between a depth in the first glass substrate to the interface wherein the slope is measured is at a spacing of ≤0.1mm, along an eleventh line perpendicular to the interface extending between a depth in the second glass to the interface wherein the slope is measured is at a spacing of ≤0.1mm “or” along a twelfth line perpendicular to the interface as claimed extending between a depth of the first substrate the interface and the depth of the second substrate and the interface wherein the slope being measured is at a spacing of ≤0.1mm.
Further note for the record that the limitation seems to be related to how much the slope varies in the thickness direction from a depth in the first glass to the interface, a depth in the second glass to the interface or depths in both the first and second glasses to the interface and the slope variation in the thickness direction being ≤0.1ppb/K2 with regard to claim 16 and ≤2ppb/K2, ≤1ppb/K2 or ≤0.5ppb/K2 with regard to claim 17 wherein the variations are measured at ≤0.1mm spacing intervals .
In the instant case, the Examiner initially notes that given that ‘452’s second glass has the same compositional variation meeting that of Applicants’ claim 11, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same variation of properties, including slope, resulting therefrom to be present (MPEP 2112).
Similarly, given that ‘452’s second glass has the same compositional variation meeting that of Applicants’ claim 11, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same absolute value difference (xvii from claim 16 and xxi and xxii from claim 17) resulting therefrom to be present (MPEP 2112).
Alternatively, the Examiner notes that given that it was discussed previously that ‘452 explicitly teaches that their glass composition is uniform throughout the thickness, one skilled in the art would reasonably expect/conclude that properties resulting therefrom will also be uniform throughout the thickness including at all spacings in the thickness direction. Specifically, ‘452’s second glass 120 thickness is at least 1inch (25.4mm) (0013) and one skilled in the art would reasonably expect/conclude property uniformity at all spacings (i.e. 0.1mm, 0.2mm, 0.3mm, 0.4mm, 0.5mm etc.) in the thickness direction.
Further, regarding the measure of property uniformity claimed note that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, as mentioned above, ‘452 does teach the desire for their glass to have uniformity in composition but ‘452 also teaches that their second glass 120 can have a CTE (expansivity) slope of ≤1ppb/K2 measured at 20oC wherein it is desirable for their second glass to have CTE uniformity with CTE variation being less than 1ppb/K (0017).
Given that ‘452 explicitly teaches the desire for their glass to not only have uniformity in composition but also uniformity in expansivity properties, it would have been obvious and well within the skill in the art to reduce the variation of expansivity properties as much as possible, including that of zero, for improved uniformity.
Regarding claims 18-19 and 20: Given that ‘452’s composite glass article meets that of Applicants’ claim 11 and 20 (see discussions above), one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same properties resulting therefrom when measured as claimed to be present (MPEP 2112).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9AM to 5PM.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/LAUREN R COLGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights