DETAILED ACTION
This is the Office action based on the 17033201 application filed September 25, 2020, and in response to applicant’s argument/remark filed on March 25, 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below. Applicant’s withdrawal of claims 13-17 acknowledged.
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 .
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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 25, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretations
Claim 1 recites “dispensing a first plurality of droplets to discrete portions of the surface of the material in a desired area thereof”. Since claim 1 does not specifies the metes and bounds of the “desired area”, for the purpose of examining the “desired area” is interpreted as any area. Claim 4 recites the limitation “the droplets of liquid are dispensed over the entire desired area”, for the purpose of examining this limitation is interpreted as the droplets of liquid completely cover the desired area.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “providing a second liquid, comprising a sensitizer which, when intermixed with the polymer, changes a reactivity of the polymer to electromagnetic energy”. Since claim 18 does not specify how the reactivity of the polymer to electromagnetic energy is changed, for the purpose of examining this will be interpreted as any change is applicable. For example, a solution comprising a chemical that changes the phase of the polymer, such as from solid to liquid, would satisfy the limitation.
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.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The term “the 3 dimensional feature” lacks antecedent basis. Although claim 1 recites “a first three dimensional recess” and “a second three dimensional recess”, it does not recite a “3 dimensional feature”. For the purpose of examining it will be assumed that this term is “a three dimensional feature”. It is noted that the phrase “where the 3 dimensional feature being formed is deeper” is also not clear since a depth of a 3 dimensional feature is not recited previously
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The term “the three dimensional feature” lacks antecedent basis. Although claim 1 recites “a first three dimensional recess” and “a second three dimensional recess”, it does not recite a “3 dimensional feature”. For the purpose of examining it will be assumed that this term is “a three dimensional feature”.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The term “the three dimensional feature” lacks antecedent basis. Although claim 1 recites “a first three dimensional recess” and “a second three dimensional recess”, it does not recite a “3 dimensional feature”. For the purpose of examining it will be assumed that this term is “a three dimensional feature”.
Claim 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. - The term “the different discrete areas” lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of examining it will be assumed that this term is “different discrete areas”.- The term “the discrete area” lacks antecedent basis. Although claim 18 recites “different discrete areas” and “desired, discrete areas” in a previous sentence, it does not recite a “discrete area”. For the purpose of examining it will be assumed that this term is “a discrete area”.
Claim 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. - The term “the discrete area” lacks antecedent basis. Although claim 18 recites “different discrete areas” and “desired, discrete areas”, it does not recite a “discrete area”. For the purpose of examining it will be assumed that this term is “a discrete area”.
Claims 19 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they are directly or indirectly dependent on claims 18.
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 of this title, 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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 and 8-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Brunton et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20120164780), hereinafter “Brunton”, in view of Mayer et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20100029088), hereinafter “Mayer”:--Claims 1, 4, 5: Brunton teaches an inkjet etching method by using an inkjet printing head 12 having a plurality of nozzles (Fig. 11, [0084-0085]), comprising(i) providing a substrate comprising layers 2, 4 and 3 on its surface ([0041], Fig. 1);(ii) mounting the substrate on a stage ([0085]);(iii) performing a first etching stage by supplying a droplet 7 of a first etchant onto a designated spot on the layer to be etched by through a plurality of nozzles 8 of a print head 12 (Fig. 3, 11), wherein the etchant dissolves a first portion of the layer to be etched at the designated spot to form a hole 10 ([0046-0055], Fig. 5); then (iv) moving the stage relative to the print head to form a first set of holes according to a predetermined pattern ([0054, 0078], Fig. 4);(v) rinsing the substrate to remove excess etchant and dissolved materials ([0071]);(vi) optionally performing a second etch stage ([0058, 0065]) by supplying a second etchant by using the same print head 12 onto one or more holes that are formed in step (iii) and (iv), wherein the etchant dissolves a second portion of the layer to be etched to form a second set of holes ([0064-0071]), then rinsing the substrate to remove excess etchant and dissolved materials ([0071]);(vii) optionally performing a third etch stage by supplying a third etchant by using the same print head 12 onto one or more holes that are formed in step (iii) and (iv), wherein the etchant dissolves a third portion of the layer to be etched to form a third set of holes ([0065, 0070]), then rinsing the substrate to remove excess etchant and dissolved materials; It is noted that a hole in the first set of holes reads on the first three dimensional recess, and a hole in the second set of holes reads on the second three dimensional recess recited in claim 1. Brunton further teaches that the delivery of etchant to the substrate is based on “drop on demand” ([0009, 0088]), that the volume of the droplet ejected from each of the plurality of nozzles may be independently adjustable by independently changing a size of each nozzle ([0030]), and that location and the size of the designated spots, and the timing of the droplet ejection from the nozzles, and the ejection rate and size of the droplets ([0011-0012, 0025]) may be selected to produce holes having different sizes locating in any desired arrangement (Fig. 9 and 10, [0083-0087]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to set the duration of the etchant droplets delivery and to select the spot sizes such that more droplets are delivered to a first spot than to a second spot adjacent to it. Brunton is silent about a details of the rinsing, and fails to teach the claimed feature the print head comprises a first feed line and a second feed line, the first feed line containing an etchant of uniform concentration or molarity, and the second feed line containing a uniform concentration of quenching chemical. Mayer, also directed to a method of wet etching a substrate by using a plate comprising a set of nozzles that spray liquid onto the substrate (Fig. 1), teaches that the etching comprises supplying etching liquid to the substrate, then ceasing the supplying the etching liquid then applying deionized water or a quenchant to the substrate ([0018]). Mayer further teaches that the plate may advantageously comprise “two or more internal fluid-directing manifolds that feed chemicals, water, and quenchant to two or more of the slot nozzle openings independently” ([0027]) and “(s)ome embodiments of an apparatus, further comprise a rinse nozzle for rinsing the nozzle arm or plate and the etch nozzles. Some embodiments further comprise a rinse nozzle for rinsing the etch nozzles when substantially no etching liquid is flowing through the etch nozzles. Some embodiments further comprise a treatment container in which the wafer holder and the etch nozzles are located, a plurality of rinse nozzles for rinsing etching liquid from treatment container walls, and a rinse manifold for supplying the rinse nozzles with rinsing liquid” ([0029]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to feed the etchant and rinsing/quenchant fluid in separate feed lines through a fluid-directing manifold to independent slot nozzles to etch then rinsing the substrate in the invention of Brunton modified by Mayer because Brunton teaches to rinse the substrate after each etchant application but is silent about a method of rinsing, and Mayer teaches that such method of feeding the etchant and rinsing/quenchant liquid through a fluid-directing manifold to independent slot nozzles would be effective. It is noted that the rinse/quenchant liquid, such as the water, would react and/or dilute with the etchant, thus quenches the reaction between the etchant and the layer. Although Brunton and Mayer are silent about a uniform concentration of the etchant in the etchant liquid, and a uniform concentration of the rinsing chemical or of the quenchant in the rinsing/quenching liquid, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use such liquid having such uniform concentration because these are common practices in the art.--Claim 2: It is obvious that, within a desired area, the printer head may eject more droplets of the etchant on the portion where a hole to be formed than an adjacent portion where there is no hole to be formed.--Claim 3: Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention that, within a desired area, to perform the first etching stage such that the printer head ejects more droplets of the etchant on a first spot having a smaller area than a second spot. Thus, the hole that is formed in the first spot, having formed by more etchant, would be deeper than the hole that is formed in the second spot. Alternately, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to perform the second etch stage on a first hole that is formed by the first etch stage, but do not perform the second etch stage on a second hole that is formed by the first etch stage. Since Brunton further teaches that the first etchant may be the same as the second etchant ([0089]), more etchant is supplied to the first hole, thus makes a deeper hole. --Claim 8, 9: Brunton further teaches to control the volume of the droplets ([0011-0012, 0025, 0030]). Although Brunton and Mayer are silent about a uniform concentration of the etchant in the etchant liquid, and a uniform concentration of the rinsing chemical or of the quenchant in the rinsing/quenching liquid, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use such liquid having such uniform concentration because these are common practices in the art.--Claim 10: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to supply more etchant to a spot that requires a deeper hole. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to supply more etchant by increasing the volume of the droplets.--Claim 11, 12: It is noted that the etching in the first etching stage form a 3-D feature on the surface of the substrate that exposes the underlying layer 4.
Claims 6 and 7 rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Brunton and Mayer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Young (U.S. PGPub. No. 20070007627), hereinafter “Young”:--Claim 6: Brunton modified by Mayer teaches the invention as above. Brunton further teaches that the printing head may be used to apply droplets of etchant to dissolve portions of a photoresist layer to form contact holes as taught by Young et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20070007627) ([0006, 0008]). Young, also directed to a method of forming holes in a layer ([0012]) by supplying droplets of etchant using inkjet printing, teaches that the shape of the hole varies with the concentration of the solvent ([0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to vary the concentration of the etchant to adjust the shape of the holes in the invention of Brunton because Young teaches that this would be effective. Alternately, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention that, within a desired area, to perform the first etching stage such that the printer head ejects more droplets of the etchant on a first spot having a smaller area than a second spot. Thus, the hole that is formed in the first spot, having formed by more etchant, would be deeper than the hole that is formed in the second spot. It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to perform the second etch stage on a first hole that is formed by the first etch stage, but do not perform the second etch stage on a second hole that is formed by the first etch stage. Since Brunton further teaches that the first etchant may be the same as the second etchant ([0089]), more etchant is supplied to the first hole, thus makes a deeper hole. Thus, regarding claim 6, since Brunton further teaches that the first etchant may be different than the second etchant ([0046, 0058]); thus, liquid droplets having different concentration of an etchant may be supplied to different holes in a desired area. For example, Brunton teaches that the first etchant may comprise hydrofluoric acid, hydrogen peroxide, and water ([0046]); and the second etchant may comprise hydrofluoric acid, nitric acid, and water ([0058]); thus, the concentration of hydrogen peroxide in the first etchant is different than in the second etchant. Regarding claim 7, during the second etch stage a droplet having a higher concentration of nitric acid is supplied to the first hole than a droplet supplied to the first hole during the first etching stage.
Claims 18-20 rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Brunton, Mayer, Young, and Gooding et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 11174407), hereinafter “Gooding” :--Claims 18, 19, 20: Brunton teaches an inkjet etching method by using an inkjet printing head 12 having a plurality of nozzles (Fig. 11, [0084-0085]), comprising(i) providing a substrate comprising layers 2, 4 and 3 on its surface ([0041], Fig. 1);(ii) mounting the substrate on a stage ([0085]);(iii) performing a first etching stage by supplying a droplet 7 of a first etchant onto a designated spot on the layer to be etched by through a plurality of nozzles 8 of a print head 12 (Fig. 3, 11), wherein the etchant dissolves a first portion of the layer to be etched at the designated spot to form a hole 10 ([0046-0055], Fig. 5); then (iv) moving the stage relative to the print head to form a first set of holes according to a predetermined pattern ([0054, 0078], Fig. 4);(v) rinsing the substrate to remove excess etchant and dissolved materials ([0071]);(vi) optionally performing a second etch stage ([0058, 0065]) by supplying a second etchant by using the same print head 12 onto one or more holes that are formed in step (iii) and (iv), wherein the etchant dissolves a second portion of the layer to be etched to form a second set of holes ([0064-0071]), then rinsing the substrate to remove excess etchant and dissolved materials ([0071]);(vii) optionally performing a third etch stage by supplying a third etchant by using the same print head 12 onto one or more holes that are formed in step (iii) and (iv), wherein the etchant dissolves a third portion of the layer to be etched to form a third set of holes ([0065, 0070]), then rinsing the substrate to remove excess etchant and dissolved materials; It is noted that a hole in the first set of holes reads on the first three dimensional recess, and a hole in the second set of holes reads on the second three dimensional recess recited in claim 1. Brunton further teaches that the delivery of etchant to the substrate is based on “drop on demand” ([0009, 0088]), that the volume of the droplet ejected from each of the plurality of nozzles may be independently adjustable by independently changing a size of each nozzle ([0030]), and that location and the size of the designated spots, and the timing of the droplet ejection from the nozzles, and the ejection rate and size of the droplets ([0011-0012, 0025]) may be selected to produce holes having different sizes locating in any desired arrangement (Fig. 9 and 10, [0083-0087]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to set the duration of the etchant droplets delivery and to select the spot sizes such that more droplets are delivered to a first spot than to a second spot adjacent to it. Brunton is silent about a details of the rinsing, and fails to teach the claimed feature the print head comprises a first feed line and a second feed line, the first feed line containing an etchant of uniform concentration or molarity, and the second feed line containing a uniform concentration of quenching chemical. Mayer, also directed to a method of wet etching a substrate by using a plate comprising a set of nozzles that spray liquid onto the substrate (Fig. 1), teaches that the etching comprises supplying etching liquid to the substrate, then ceasing the supplying the etching liquid then applying deionized water or a quenchant to the substrate ([0018]). Mayer further teaches that the plate may advantageously comprise “two or more internal fluid-directing manifolds that feed chemicals, water, and quenchant to two or more of the slot nozzle openings independently” ([0027]) and “(s)ome embodiments of an apparatus, further comprise a rinse nozzle for rinsing the nozzle arm or plate and the etch nozzles. Some embodiments further comprise a rinse nozzle for rinsing the etch nozzles when substantially no etching liquid is flowing through the etch nozzles. Some embodiments further comprise a treatment container in which the wafer holder and the etch nozzles are located, a plurality of rinse nozzles for rinsing etching liquid from treatment container walls, and a rinse manifold for supplying the rinse nozzles with rinsing liquid” ([0029]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to feed the etchant and rinsing/quenchant fluid in separate feed lines through a fluid-directing manifold to independent slot nozzles to etch then rinsing the substrate in the invention of Brunton modified by Mayer because Brunton teaches to rinse the substrate after each etchant application but is silent about a method of rinsing, and Mayer teaches that such method of feeding the etchant and rinsing/quenchant liquid through a fluid-directing manifold to independent slot nozzles would be effective. It is noted that the rinse/quenchant liquid, such as the water, would react and/or dilute with the etchant, thus quenches the reaction between the etchant and the layer. Although Brunton and Mayer are silent about a uniform concentration of the etchant in the etchant liquid, and a uniform concentration of the rinsing chemical or of the quenchant in the rinsing/quenching liquid, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use such liquid having such uniform concentration because these are common practices in the art. Brunton further teaches that the printing head may be used to apply droplets of etchant to dissolve portions of a photoresist layer to form contact holes as taught by Young et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20070007627) ([0006, 0008]). Young, also directed to a method of forming holes in a layer ([0012]) by supplying droplets of etchant using inkjet printing, teaches that the shape of the hole varies with the concentration of the solvent ([0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to vary the concentration of the etchant to adjust the shape of the holes in the invention of Brunton because Young teaches that this would be effective. Gooding teaches that a photosensitive layer may be deposited by using inkjet printing (Col. 2, Lines 43-45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to deposit a photosensitive layer by using a first set of nozzle in a printing head in the invention of Brunton modified by Mayer, then etching holes in the photoresist layer by using a second set of nozzles in the printing head because Brunton modified by Mayer teaches that etchant may be supplied by a printing head to etch holes in a photoresist layer, and Gooding teaches that the photoresist layer may be formed by using the printing head. It is noted that this would simplify manufacturing and improve time and equipment cost. Please also refer to Claim Interpretations regarding claim 18 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 25, 2026 have been fully considered as follows:--Regarding Applicant’s argument that the previously cited prior arts do not teach the amended feature, this arguments is not persuasive. However, to provide better clarify and better logical reasoning, the previous prior arts have been rearranged in a new ground of rejection, as shown above. No new prior art is added. It is noted that the amended feature “positioning the first three dimensional recess under the droplet dispenser via positioning of the support with respect to the droplet dispenser, and dispensing a first plurality of droplets to discrete portions of the surface of the material in a desired area thereof, to remove at least a portion of the material layer in the first three dimensional recess and thereby form a second three dimensional recess inwardly of the surface of the material; applying, through the one or more nozzles, a liquid material having a quenching chemistry therein capable of quenching the reaction between the liquid material having a reactant therein and the material layer by reacting with the reactant in the liquid material having a reactant therein” is clearly taught by Brunton modified by Mayer, as explained above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-7670 and fax number is (571) 270-8670. The examiner can normally be reached on MTWThF9to6 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Allen can be reached on (571) 270-3176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS T PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713