DETAILED ACTION
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of Group I, claims 15-21 in the reply filed on Jun. 9, 2026, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed Jan. 17, 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
DE-102022105930-A1, DE10-2018111144-A1, DE-102022105929-A1, DE102004008824-A1, and DE10-2005036224-A1 are not in English.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains “implied” phrases, such as the term “relates to”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the term Ts is not defined in the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
In the specification, pg. 3, line 3 references a process as claimed in any of claims 1 to 8, Please, remove the reference to the claims, since claim language may change and claims can be deleted or added during the patent examination process. Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 15, the Examiner interprets lines 1-2, as the preamble of the claim, and the body of claim begins after the term “comprising” in line 3, and therefore, lines 4-11 are interpreted as the body of the claim.
The CTE is recited in the preamble of claim 15, and the glass-ceramic composite body is only recited in the preamble of claim 15, not the body of the claim. Therefore, the Examiner interprets the CTE recited in the preamble of claim 15 as not further limiting the body of the claim. If the CTE is to further limit the claim, please place the CTE requirement into the body of the claim and clarify the step of creating in lines 9-11 of the body of the claim form the glass-ceramic composite body.
The term “green glass of a glass ceramic” in the claims is interpreted as an initial, non-crystallized precursor of glass.
The Examiner interprets “the surfaces” in line 7 of claim 15 and “the surfaces” in line 1 of claim 16 as referencing “the contacting surfaces of the starting elements” recited in line 5 of claim 15.
Claim 16 claims a flatness of less than 300 microns and/or greater than 20 microns. The Examiner interprets these ranges as three alternative ranges, specifically a flatness of less than 300 microns, a flatness of less than 300 microns and greater than 20 microns, or greater than 20 microns.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error in line 8. The term “under the action of pressure” should be “under an action of pressure”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error in line 1, “the step” should be “a step”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error in line 1, “the step” should be “a step”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 17 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.
In claim 17, the temperature terms Tg and TS have not been defined in the claim. Therefore, the claim lacks clarity. Please define the terms. Based on the specification, Tg represents the transition temperature and TS is not defined in the specification, the Examiner interprets Tg + TS as a temperature greater than Tg for examination purposes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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)(1) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Busdiecker et al. (US 3,507,737).
Regarding claim 15, Busdiecker (Col. 3, lines 7-18) discloses a method of forming articles from a thermally crystallizable glass by sealing (i.e. bonding) two thermally crystallizable glass parts (corresponding to at least two starting elements of a green glass of a glass-ceramic) along adjoining contacting surfaces. Busdiecker discloses (Figs. 1-6 and Col. 6, lines 38-52 and Col. 5, lines 43-73) spacing members (11,12 or 29) arranged on and the upper surface of (13,24) and layer (10,23) placed upon the top of the spacing members to form an assembly. The surfaces 17, 17’ and 18, 18’ of the spacing members are in contact with surface 15 of layer 10 and surface 16 of layer 13 or surfaces of layers 23 and 24 . This corresponds to the step of providing at least two starting elements (spacing members and layers) consisting of a green glass of a glass-ceramic and arranging the at least two starting elements and contacting surfaces of the starting elements to be bonded.
Busdiecker also discloses while the weight of the upper layer 10 is sufficient to maintain pressure on surfaces 17, 17’, additional pressure can be placed upon layer 10 to assist in the sealing of the adjoining surfaces of the assembly, and discloses heating the assembling for a time and temperature necessary to effecting bonding. This corresponds to the step of two-dimensionally pressing the surfaces of the at least two starting elements to be bonded to one another under an action of pressure and creating a monolithic bond between the at least two starting elements by heating, under the action of pressure. Busdiecker (Col. 7, lines 52-55) also discloses after bonding, the bonded assembly is subjected to thermal in situ nucleation and crystallization heat treatment to bring about the proper amount of nucleation and subsequent crystallization. This disclosure of heat treatment by Busdiecker provides for the at least two starting elements pressed to one another to a temperature Tk at which ceramization of the green glass to the glass-ceramic takes place. As stated in the claim interpretation section above, the CTE and glass-ceramic composite body only recited in the preamble of the claim, and the Examiner interprets the CTE recited in the preamble of claim 15 as not further limiting the body of the claim. Accordingly, Busdiecker provides for the claimed steps of providing, arranging, two-dimensionally pressing, and creating a monolithic bond, as claimed.
Regarding claim 19, as discussed in the rejection of claim 15 above, Busdiecker discloses (Figs. 1-6) discloses an assembly formed of spacing members (11,12 or 29) arranged on the upper surface of layer (13,24) and layer (10,23) placed upon the top of the spacing members to form an assembly. Accordingly, at least one of the at least two starting elements (“spacing members 29”) has a surface interrupted by cavities and/or at least one of the two starting elements (“layers 23,24”) has a plate-shaped form.
Claim(s) 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busdiecker et al. (US 3,507,737).
Regarding claim 19, as discussed in the rejection of claim 15 above, Busdiecker discloses (Figs. 1-6) discloses an assembly formed of spacing members (11,12 or 29) arranged on the upper surface of layer (13,24) and layer (10,23) placed upon the top of the spacing members to form an assembly. Additionally, in addition to the rejection of claim 15 above, Busdiecker (Col. 5, lines 2-4) discloses while the layer 10 is shown in a flat, rectangular configuration, it can also be circular or oval, or of any desirable configuration. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at least one of the two starting elements (i.e. layers) has a disk-shaped form.
Regarding claim 21, in addition to the rejection of claim 15 above, Busdiecker (Col. 5, lines 2-4) discloses while the layer 10 is shown in a flat, rectangular configuration, it can also be circular or oval, or of any desirable configuration. Busdiecker (Col. 1, lines 57-64) teaches the diameter of the mirror blank to the thickness is usually six to one and teaches mirror blanks of one, two, four, or even six hundred inches in diameter (100”-2450mm, 200”-5080mm, 400”-10160mm,600”-15240mm). Busdiecker also teaches the structural parts (i.e. starting elements) in Figs. 1-3 are say, 4 inches (101.6 mm) or more thick. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the assembly (i.e. mirror blank) of Busdiecker having starting elements including circular or oval having a thickness of at least 4 inches (101.6mm) and with a diameter of the mirror blank six times the thickness provides for circular starting element having a diameter of 609.6 mm which provides for a diameter of at least 400 mm or even a rectangular starting element of approximately 609.6 mm in length which provides for an edge length of at least 400 mm.
Additionally, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, starting elements having a thickness greater than 4 inches to provide for mirror blanks diameters of one, two, four, or even 600 inches in diameter which provides for a diameter of at least 40 mm or in a rectangular configuration having an edge length of approximately one, two, four, or even 600 inches which provides for an edge length of at least 400 mm.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busdiecker et al. (US 3,507,737) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Minamikawa (US 2003/0230114A1).
Regarding claim 16, in addition to the rejection of claim 16 above, Busdiecker (Col. 6, lines 63-66) also discloses the spacing members can have their surfaces ground and polished for a better fit when contacting surfaces 15 and 16 which can also be ground and polished flat.
Busdiecker fails to disclose the at least two starting elements to be bonded are provided with a flatness of less than 300 microns and/or greater than 20 microns. However, Minamikawa (abstract and [0017]) discloses a method of fusing glass components by contacting surfaces of the glass components and heating. Minamikawa teaches polishing each surface brought to be brought into contact by precisely polishing the surfaces to a flatness of 633 nm or less. Both Minamikawa and Busdiecker discloses crystallizable glass components brought into contact to be fused by heating and polishing the surfaces. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Minamikawa, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to polish the contacting surfaces of the at least elements to be bonded in the method of Busdiecker with a known flatness polishing range of less than 633 nm, as taught by Minamikawa. The range of less than 633 nm overlaps Applicant’s claimed range of less than 300 microns.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busdiecker et al. (US 3,507,737) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Ogawa (US 2021/0122661) and Britannica (“Industrial Glass”).
Regarding claim 17, Busdiecker fails to disclose the method further comprising a step of controlled geometric deformation of at least one of the starting elements at a temperature between Tg and Tg + TS, which as discussed above lacks clarity, and will be interpreted as a temperature greater than Tg for examination purposes. However, as discussed in the rejection of claim 15 above, Busdiecker discloses a low expansion telescope mirror blank for the assembly. Additionally, Busdiecker (Col. 6, lines 25-27) teaches the top sheet or layer of thermally crystallizable glass may be a convex configuration, and Ogawa ([0045]) teaches bending a glass plate G for a mirror and (abstract) heating the plate to sag and shape mirror and ([0059]-[0060]) controlling the temperature as the glass plate softens and keeping the furnace at a predetermined temperature during shaping. Also, Britannica (pg. 10) teaches the softening point temperature is the temperature at which glass is at a viscosity of 107.65 poise and may slump under its own weight and the glass transition temperature Tg (i.e. annealing point) having a viscosity of 1013 poise. Therefore, since Busdiecker teaches the top layer (corresponding to at least one of the two starting elements) of the telescope mirror assembly having a convex configuration, and knowledge in the prior art Ogawa of shaping by heating and controlling the temperature while sagging and shaping a glass sheet for a mirror and teachings by Britannica that the temperature of slumping (i.e. sagging) is at a temperature higher than the glass transition temperature Tg, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the method of Busdiecker further comprising a step controlled geometric deformation (i.e. temperature controlled shaping) at least one of the at least two starting elements (i.e. layer 10) into a convex configuration at a temperature higher than the glass transition temperature including temperatures above the softening temperature.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busdiecker et al. (US 3,507,737) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Shibano et al. (US 2007/0132068 – hereinafter Shibano.
Regarding claim 18, in addition to the rejection of claim 16 above, Busdiecker (Col. 6, lines 63-66) also discloses the spacing members can have their surfaces ground and polished for a better fit when contacting surfaces 15 and 16 which can also be ground and polished flat, which provides for a step of processing at least one of the at least two starting elements.
Busdiecker fails to disclose the step of processing by water-jet cutting, CNC processing and/or sandblasting. However, Shibano ([0015]-[0021] and [0037) a method of processing a substrate, such as glass substrate, to provide having a high flatness by polishing. Shibano discloses correction of flatness can be carried out by sandblasting with a sandblast nozzle. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Shibano, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art the method Busdiecker the contacting surfaces ground and polished flat by sandblasting. Accordingly, Busdiecker in view of Shibano provides for a step of processing the contacting surfaces of the at least two starting elements by sandblasting.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busdiecker et al. (US 3,507,737) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. (US 2012/0177866 – hereinafter Zhou).
Regarding claim 20, as discussed in the rejection of claim 15 above, Busdiecker discloses additional pressure can be placed upon layer 10 to assist in the sealing of the adjoining surfaces of the assembly. Busdiecker fails to disclose details of the additional pressure, such as the claimed pressure is generated by at least one added weight in a two-dimensional arrangement on or above at least one of the two starting elements and/or wherein the pressure is generated by a vacuum on the green glass structure. However, Zhou (Fig. 2(c)) discloses a process or providing a pressing pressure during a heating/softening process, such as applying a pressing block 6 with a certain weight to press a glass plate. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Zhou, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, a method of generating additional pressure during heating to the layer (10 or 23) for bonding wherein the pressure is generated by at least one added weight, such as a block, in a two dimensional arrangement on or above at least one of the at least two starting elements.
Alternate rejections of claims if it is interpreted the CTE in the preamble of the claim should be given patentable weight.
Claim(s) 15, 19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busdiecker et al. (US 3,507,737) in view of Mitra et al. (US 2022/0298062A1 – hereinafter Mitra).
Regarding claim 15, Busdiecker (Col. 3, lines 7-18) discloses a method of forming articles from a thermally crystallizable glass by sealing (i.e. bonding) two thermally crystallizable glass parts (corresponding to at least two starting elements of a green glass of a glass-ceramic) along adjoining contacting surfaces. Busdiecker discloses (Figs. 1-3 and Col. 6, lines 38-52) spacing members 11,12 arranged on and the upper surface of 13 and layer 10 placed upon the top of the spacing members to form an assembly. The surfaces 17, 17’ and 18, 18’ of the spacing members are in contact with surface 15 of layer 10 and surface 16 of layer 13. This corresponds to the step of providing at least two starting elements (spacing members and layers) consisting of a green glass of a glass-ceramic and arranging the at least two starting elements and contacting surfaces of the starting elements to be bonded.
Busdiecker also discloses while the weight of the upper layer 10 is sufficient to maintain pressure on surfaces 17, 17’, additional pressure can be placed upon layer 10 to assist in the sealing of the adjoining surfaces of the assembly, and discloses heating the assembling for a time and temperature necessary to effecting bonding. This corresponds to the step of two-dimensionally pressing the surfaces of the at least two starting elements to be bonded to one another under an action of pressure and creating a monolithic bond between the at least two starting elements by heating, under the action of pressure. Busdiecker (Col. 7, lines 52-55) also discloses after bonding, the bonded assembly is subjected to thermal in situ nucleation and crystallization heat treatment to bring about the proper amount of nucleation and subsequent crystallization to produce a low expansion telescope mirror blank (corresponding to a glass-ceramic composite body). The disclosure of heat treatment by Busdiecker provides for the at least two starting elements pressed to one another to a temperature Tk at which ceramization of the green glass to the glass-ceramic takes place. Accordingly, Busdiecker provides for the claimed steps of providing, arranging, two-dimensionally pressing, and creating a monolithic bond, as claimed.
As discussed above, Busdiecker discloses the crystallization heat treatment produces a glass-ceramic composite body (“low expansion telescope mirror blank”). Busdiecker fails to disclose the glass-ceramic composite body having a CTE in the range from 0 to 50 °C of not more than +/-0.1 ꓫ 10-6/K. However, Busdiecker (Col. 9, lines 12-15) discloses telescope mirror blanks as lithium aluminosilicate (LAS) and Mitra ([0017]-[0021] and Tables) discloses a LAS glass ceramic composition for an astronomy mirror having a CTE in the range from 0 to 50 °C of not more than +/-0.1 ꓫ 10-6/K. Both Busdiecker and Mitra teach LAS glass ceramics for astronomy/telescope mirrors. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in the method of Busdiecker to substitute the LAS composition of Busdiecker with an alternative prior art known LAS composition having a CTE in the range from 0 to 50 °C of not more than +/-0.1 ꓫ 10-6/K, as taught by Mitra, since both Busdiecker and Mitra teach LAS glass ceramics for astronomy/telescope mirrors.
Regarding claim 19, as discussed in the rejection of claim 15 above, Busdiecker discloses (Figs. 1-6) discloses an assembly formed of spacing members (11,12 or 29) arranged on the upper surface of layer (13,24) and layer (10,23) placed upon the top of the spacing members to form an assembly. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the method of Busdiecker in view of Mitra provides for a t least one of the at least two starting elements (“spacing members 29”) has a surface interrupted by cavities and/or at least one of the two starting elements (“layers 23,24”) has a plate-shaped form.
Additionally, in addition to the rejection of claim 15 above, Busdiecker (Col. 5, lines 2-4) discloses while the layer 10 is shown in a flat, rectangular configuration, it can also be circular or oval, or of any desirable configuration. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at least one of the two starting elements (i.e. layers) has a disk-shaped form.
Regarding claim 21, in addition to the rejection of claim 15 above, Busdiecker (Col. 5, lines 2-4) discloses while the layer 10 is shown in a flat, rectangular configuration, it can also be circular or oval, or of any desirable configuration. Busdiecker (Col. 1, lines 57-64) teaches the diameter of the mirror blank to the thickness is usually six to one and teaches mirror blanks of one, two, four, or even six hundred inches in diameter (100”-2450mm, 200”-5080mm, 400”-10160mm,600”-15240mm). Busdiecker also teaches the structural parts (i.e. starting elements) in Figs. 1-3 are say, 4 inches (101.6 mm) or more thick. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the assembly (i.e. mirror blank) of Busdiecker having starting elements including circular or oval having a thickness of at least 4 inches (101.6mm) and with a diameter of the mirror blank six times the thickness provides for circular starting element having a diameter of 609.6 mm which provides for a diameter of at least 400 mm or even a rectangular starting element of approximately 609.6 mm in length which provides for an edge length of at least 400 mm.
Additionally, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, starting elements having a thickness greater than 4 inches to provide for mirror blanks diameters of one, two, four, or even 600 inches in diameter which provides for a diameter of at least 40 mm or in a rectangular configuration having an edge length of approximately one, two, four, or even 600 inches which provides for an edge length of at least 400 mm.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busdiecker et al. (US 3,507,737) in view of Mitra et al. (US 2022/0298062A1 – hereinafter Mitra) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Minamikawa (US 2003/0230114A1).
Regarding claim 16, in addition to the rejection of claim 16 above, Busdiecker (Col. 6, lines 63-66) also discloses the spacing members can have their surfaces ground and polished for a better fit when contacting surfaces 15 and 16 which can also be ground and polished flat.
Busdiecker fails to disclose the at least two starting elements to be bonded are provided with a flatness of less than 300 microns and/or greater than 20 microns. However, Minamikawa (abstract and [0017]) discloses a method of fusing glass components by contacting surfaces of the glass components and heating. Minamikawa teaches polishing each surface brought to be brought into contact by precisely polishing the surfaces to a flatness of 633 nm or less. Both Minamikawa and Busdiecker discloses crystallizable glass components brought into contact to be fused by heating and polishing the surfaces. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Minamikawa, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to polish the contacting surfaces of the at least elements to be bonded in the method of Busdiecker with a known flatness polishing range of less than 633 nm, as taught by Minamikawa. The range of less than 633 nm overlaps Applicant’s claimed range of less than 300 microns.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busdiecker et al. (US 3,507,737) in view of Mitra et al. (US 2022/0298062A1 – hereinafter Mitra) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Ogawa (US 2021/0122661) and Britannica (“Industrial Glass”).
Regarding claim 17, Busdiecker fails to disclose the method further comprising a step of controlled geometric deformation of at least one of the starting elements at a temperature between Tg and Tg + TS, which as discussed above lacks clarity, and will be interpreted as a temperature greater than Tg for examination purposes. However, as discussed in the rejection of claim 15 above, Busdiecker discloses a low expansion telescope mirror blank for the assembly. Additionally, Busdiecker (Col. 6, lines 25-27) teaches the top sheet or layer of thermally crystallizable glass may be a convex configuration, and Ogawa ([0045]) teaches bending a glass plate G for a mirror and (abstract) heating the plate to sag and shape mirror and ([0059]-[0060]) controlling the temperature as the glass plate softens and keeping the furnace at a predetermined temperature during shaping. Also, Britannica (pg. 10) teaches the softening point temperature is the temperature at which glass is at a viscosity of 107.65 poise and may slump under its own weight and the glass transition temperature Tg (i.e. annealing point) having a viscosity of 1013 poise. Therefore, since Busdiecker teaches the top layer (corresponding to at least one of the two starting elements) of the telescope mirror assembly having a convex configuration, and knowledge in the prior art Ogawa of shaping by heating and controlling the temperature while sagging and shaping a glass sheet for a mirror and teachings by Britannica that the temperature of slumping (i.e. sagging) is at a temperature higher than the glass transition temperature Tg, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the method of Busdiecker further comprising a step controlled geometric deformation (i.e. temperature controlled shaping) at least one of the at least two starting elements (i.e. layer 10) into a convex configuration at a temperature higher than the glass transition temperature including temperatures above the softening temperature.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busdiecker et al. (US 3,507,737) in view of Mitra et al. (US 2022/0298062A1 – hereinafter Mitra) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Shibano et al. (US 2007/0132068 – hereinafter Shibano.
Regarding claim 18, in addition to the rejection of claim 16 above, Busdiecker (Col. 6, lines 63-66) also discloses the spacing members can have their surfaces ground and polished for a better fit when contacting surfaces 15 and 16 which can also be ground and polished flat, which provides for a step of processing at least one of the at least two starting elements.
Busdiecker fails to disclose the step of processing by water-jet cutting, CNC processing and/or sandblasting. However, Shibano ([0015]-[0021] and [0037) a method of processing a substrate, such as glass substrate, to provide having a high flatness by polishing. Shibano discloses correction of flatness can be carried out by sandblasting with a sandblast nozzle. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Shibano, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art the method Busdiecker the contacting surfaces ground and polished flat by sandblasting. Accordingly, Busdiecker in view of Shibano provides for a step of processing the contacting surfaces of the at least two starting elements by sandblasting.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busdiecker et al. (US 3,507,737) in view of Mitra et al. (US 2022/0298062A1 – hereinafter Mitra) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. (US 2012/0177866 – hereinafter Zhou).
Regarding claim 20, as discussed in the rejection of claim 15 above, Busdiecker discloses additional pressure can be placed upon layer 10 to assist in the sealing of the adjoining surfaces of the assembly. Busdiecker fails to disclose details of the additional pressure, such as the claimed pressure is generated by at least one added weight in a two-dimensional arrangement on or above at least one of the two starting elements and/or wherein the pressure is generated by a vacuum on the green glass structure. However, Zhou (Fig. 2(c)) discloses a process or providing a pressing pressure during a heating/softening process, such as applying a pressing block 6 with a certain weight to press a glass plate. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Zhou, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, a method of generating additional pressure during heating to the layer (10 or 23) for bonding wherein the pressure is generated by at least one added weight, such as a block, in a two dimensional arrangement on or above at least one of the at least two starting elements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-1623. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: EST 8:15am-4:15pm.
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.
/LISA L HERRING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights