DETAILED ACTION
Table of Contents
I. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 3
II. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 3
III. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 3
A. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form … 3
B. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite … 4
IV. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 5
A. Claims 1, 4-12, 14, 19, 20, 22, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/021372 A1 (“Popp”) in view of WO 2014/023470 (“Schicktanz”), US 2016/0276621 (“Khalifa”) and US 2011/0206909 (“Sneh”), and as evidenced by admissions in the Instant Application. 5
B. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popp in view of Schicktanz, Khalifa, and Sneh, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0127853 (“Pudas”). 15
C. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popp in view of Schicktanz, Khalifa, and Sneh, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of US 2021/0163348 (“Gump”). 17
D. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popp in view of Schicktanz, Khalifa, and Sneh, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US 2015/0171041 (“Chen”). 18
V. Response to Arguments 19
Conclusion 22
[The rest of this page is intentionally left blank.]
I. 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 .
II. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/15/2026 has been entered.
III. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
A. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form …
… for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 20 reads,
20. (Previously Presented) A substrate with the polymeric layer deposited and the metal component soldered or bonded using the method of claim 1.
Claim 1, however, limits the substrate to a printed circuit board, stating,
providing a substrate that includes a metal component on a surface, wherein the substrate is a printed circuit board
As such, claiming merely, “a substrate”, broadens the scope to any substrate rather than maintaining the same scope, i.e. a printed circuit board.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
B. Claim 20 is 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.
Claim 20 reads,
20. (Previously Presented) A substrate with the polymeric layer deposited and the metal component soldered or bonded using the method of claim 1.
Claim 1, however, limits the substrate to a printed circuit board, stating,
providing a substrate that includes a metal component on a surface, wherein the substrate is a printed circuit board
It is unclear if the “A substrate” recited in claim 20 has antecedent basis to the “substrate” recited in claim 1 or is some other substrate.
IV. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
A. Claims 1, 4-12, 14, 19, 20, 22, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/021372 A1 (“Popp”) in view of WO 2014/023470 (“Schicktanz”), US 2016/0276621 (“Khalifa”) and US 2011/0206909 (“Sneh”), and as evidenced by admissions in the Instant Application.
Claim 1 reads,
1. (Previously Presented) A method comprising:
[1a] providing a substrate that includes a metal component on a surface,
[1b] wherein the substrate is a printed circuit board, and
[1c] wherein the metal component is copper or aluminum;
[2a] depositing a polymeric layer directly on the metal component on the surface using molecular layer deposition,
[2b] wherein the polymeric layer includes a metalcone, and
[2c] wherein the polymeric layer has a thickness from 1 nm to 20 nm; and
[3] soldering or bonding the metal component such that a structural change occurs in the polymeric layer during the soldering or bonding of the metal component,
[4] wherein the structural change includes removal of at least part of the polymeric layer.
With regard to claim 1, Popp discloses, generally in Figs. 3 and 6,
1. (Previously Presented) A method comprising:
[1a] providing a substrate [“carrier 12” (at page 7, lines 12-13 of translation)] that includes a metal component 16, 18 [i.e. the “contact portions” on first electrode 20] on a surface,
[1b]–[1c] … [not taught] …
[2a] depositing a polymeric layer 40 directly on the metal component 16, 18 on the surface using molecular layer deposition [Figs. 3, 6; 9th page of Popp translation, lines 22-25 and lines 33-40],
[2b] wherein the polymeric layer 40 includes a metalcone [e.g. alucone or titanocone; id.], and
[2c] wherein the polymeric layer 40 has a thickness from 1 nm to 20 nm [e.g. 1 nm to 10 nm, such as 2 nm to 7 nm; id.]; and
[3]-[4] … [not taught] …
With regard to feature [1a] of claim 1, note that only Fig. 1 correctly shows that the “contact portions” 16 and 18 are on the “first electrode 20” of “first electrode layer 14” (7th page of Popp translation, line 18). Reference characters 16 and 18 in Figs. 2-6 incorrectly point to the first electrode 20 instead of the features thereon, which are correctly shown to be contact portions 16 and 18 in Fig. 1, as evidenced by the specification, which states that the “a first [c]ontact section 16 and a second contact section 18 are formed laterally outside on the first electrode layer 14” (7th page of Popp translation, lines 18-20).
It is held, absent evidence to the contrary, that 16 and 18 are metals because Popp states that the barrier layer 40, i.e. the metalcone, e.g. alucone or titanocone, helps prevent oxidation of the contact portion 16, 18, stating in this regard, “Covering the first [c]ontact portion [16] with the dielectric barrier layer [40] may help to reduce or prevent oxidation of the first contact portion” (3rd page of Popp translation, lines 40-41) and “Barrier layer 40 help to prevent the first contact region 32 and / or the second contact region 34 oxidize [sic; should be “from oxidizing”]” (10th page of Popp translation, line 19). As shown in the figures, “contact regions” 32, 34 are the surfaces of contact portions 16, 18 exposed through the “encapsulation layer 24” (8th page of Popp translation, lines 20-38). In this regard, Popp states that “[t]he first contact region 32 serves for electrical contacting of the first contact portion 16 and the second contact portion 34 is for electrical [c]ontacting the second contact portion 18” (8th page of Popp translation, lines 36-38).
The only electrically conductive materials capable of being oxidized in air are metals, as opposed to, e.g., a conductive oxide, such as ITO (indium tin oxide) from the first electrode 20 or the first layer of the first electrode 20 may be made (7h page of Popp translation, lines 21-32), which is already an oxide and therefore not oxidizable. As such, the burden of proof is shifted to Applicant to prove the contrary. (See MPEP 2112(I)-(V).)
Moreover, Popp teaches that the first electrode 20 can include a layer of Ag on ITO (again, 7th page of Popp translation, lines 21-32), the Ag being used to increase the conductivity of the first electrode 20 because ITO has a significantly lower conductivity than most metals used for electrical contacts, such as Ag. Thus, in addition to the inherent formation of the contact portions 16, 18 from metal, or, in the alternative to said inherency, it would have been at least obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use metal contact portions 16, 18, e.g. Ag, in order to reduce the contact resistance and increase the conductivity to the first electrode 20, which may made from only ITO (id.).
With regard to feature [1b] of claim 1, Popp does not indicate that the substrate, i.e. “carrier 12”, may be a printed circuit board (PCB).
Note that all citations in Schicktanz are from the attached machine language translation.
Schicktanz, like Popp, teaches an OLED lighting module including “carrier 1” on which is sequentially formed an anode 21, light-emitting layer sequence 23, and a cathode 22 [Schicktanz: Fig. 1A; ¶¶ 123, 127-142)]. Schicktanz further teaches that the carrier 1 can be a printed circuit board (PCB) (Schicktanz: ¶ 123). The benefit is that electronic components 5 can be mounted on the opposite side for controlling the light emission of the OLED stack 2 (Schicktanz: ¶¶ 143-151).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the carrier 12 in Popp from a PCB, in order to allow electronic components to be mounted on the opposite side of the carrier from the OLED stack for controlling the OLED stack, as taught in Schicktanz. As such, Schicktanz may be seen as an improvement to Popp in this aspect. (See MPEP 2143.)
With regard to features [1a] and [1c] of claim 1 and claims 24 and 25,
[1c] wherein the metal component is copper or aluminum;
24. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, wherein the metal component is copper.
25. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, wherein the metal component is aluminum.
Popp teaches that the first and second contacts 16, 18 are inherently metal, e.g. silver (supra) but does not teach copper (Cu) or aluminum (Al).
Khalifa, like Popp, is drawn to an OLED lighting module including a first electrode 210 made from a transparent conductive oxide, e.g. ITO (¶ 59), an organic light emitting layer sequence 220 (¶ 60), and a second electrode 230 (¶ 61) (Khalifa: Fig. 6b). Also like Popp, the first electrode 210 includes a contact pad 500, which is made from metal, e.g. Ag, for subsequent connection to a contact portion 600 (by soldering with tin (Sn) 630) (Khalifa: Figs. 5, 6b; ¶¶ 50, 79, 95). In addition to Ag, Khalifa teaches that the metal can be Cu or Al (Khalifa: ¶¶ 50, 79).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the contact portions 16, 18 to the ITO electrode 20 of Popp using Cu or Al because Khalifa teaches that each of Cu and Al is a known, suitable alternative to Ag for making a contact portion to an ITO electrode of an OLED lighting module. As such, the selection of Cu or Al amounts to obvious material choice. (See MPEP 2144.07.)
Even if, arguendo, the contact portions 16, 18 were not metal—a point with which Examiner disagrees given the evidence in Popp (supra)—the combination of Popp with Khalifa further renders making the contact portions 16, 18 of Popp from metal, e.g. Ag, Cu, Al, as required by feature [1a].
With regard to features [3] and [4] of claim 1 and claim 19,
[3] soldering or bonding the metal component such that a structural change occurs in the polymeric layer,
[4] wherein the structural change includes removal of at least part of the polymeric layer and densification of the at least part of the polymeric layer.
19. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, wherein the structural change includes a change in thickness of the polymeric layer.
Popp states that “[t]he first contact region 32 serves for electrical contacting of the first contact portion 16 and the second contact portion 34 is for electrical [c]ontacting the second contact portion 18” (8th page of Popp translation, lines 36-38) and that “the dielectric barrier layer 40 is formed of an electrically insulating material and formed so thin that charge carriers, such as holes or electrons, from the underlying contact portions 16, 18 to not shown in Figure 3 via the dielectric barrier layer 40 electrical contacts for electrical contacting of the organic optoelectronic component 1 … via tunneling effects” (10th page of Popp translation, lines 13-17). Popp indicates that the barrier layer 40 is so thin, e.g. 1 nm to 10 nm, such as 2 nm to 7 nm, so as to allow conduction by tunneling through said barrier layer 40 (9th page of Popp translation, lines 20-25). Thus, although not shown, electrical contacts are made to the contact portions 16, 18.
Despite electrical contacts being made to the contact portions 16, 18 , Popp does not disclose “soldering or bonding the metal component” such that at least a part of the metalcone barrier layer 40 is removed, as required by features [3] and [4] of claim 1.
Sneh, like Popp, uses a metalcone layer deposited on a metal feature 111/112, e.g. a contact, formed on a substrate, in order to prevent oxidation, i.e. “corrosion” (Sneh: Fig. 1B; ¶ 31). Also like Popp, Sneh forms the metalcone by molecular layer deposition (MLD) (Sneh: Figs. 2A-2B). As explained in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 09/01/2022, Sneh teaches most of the current features of claim 1, as follows:
1. (Previously Presented) A method comprising:
[1a] providing a substrate [not shown but is, e.g., a printed circuit board (PCB) or electronic device; ¶¶ 19, 34, 44, Table 1 on p. 5] that includes a metal component 111/112 [“tin, zinc or cadmium metallic feature 112” on “base metal 111” (¶ 34; Fig. 1A), which is a “metallic feature” as defined in ¶ 27] on a surface …;
[2a] depositing a polymeric layer 183/184 … on metal component 111/112 on the surface using molecular layer deposition [called “atomic layer deposition” (ALD) but shown to be molecular layer deposition (MLD) in Figs. 2A-2B because the ethylene glycol is a molecule and forms molecular monolayers in a cyclic process; ¶¶ 37-41],
[2b] wherein the 5polymeric layer 183/184 includes a metalcone [“Ticone” i.e. titanicone or alucone or “polycone”; ¶¶ 38-41], and
[2c] wherein the polymeric layer has a thickness from 1 nm to 20 nm [i.e. each layer of titanicone is 2 nm (¶ 38) and/or “thin polycone layers in the range of 2-25 nm were added on top of WCC layers” (¶ 41); WCC is “whisker-cap coating” (¶ 16)]; and
[3] soldering … the metal component 111/112 [i.e. heating solder to its melting point] such that a structural change occurs in the polymeric layer [¶ 50: “When the solder melts, WCC coatings disintegrate.”],
[4] wherein the structural change includes removal [i.e. “disintegrates” (id.)] of at least part of the polymeric layer 183/184.
With regard to feature [3] of claim 1, Sneh states,
[0019] In accordance with one of the above-identified embodiments of the invention, a WCC is deposited on a metallic substrate to suppress whisker growth on that substrate. The WCC is a laminate comprising an adhesion layer, a plurality of alternating middle layers, and an outermost cap layer. The adhesion layer is formed by initially hydroxylating the metallic feature surface and then utilizing atomic layer deposition (ALD) to deposit of Al2O3 thereon. The middle layers are formed by the ALD of alternating layers of Al2O3 and TiO2 or alternating layers of Al2O3 and TiO3C2H4 [i.e. titanicone as shown in Figs. 2A-2B; ¶¶ 38-40]. Lastly, the outermost layer is formed by the ALD of Ti9Al2O21. Advantageously, the above described WCC induces several hundred Megapascals of tensile stress on the underlying metallic feature, which, in turn, acts to suppress the growth of metallic whiskers both directly under the WCC and in proximity thereto. Moreover, the WCC has adhesion, hardness, yield strength, barrier, and other properties that are conducive to its use on electronic devices.
(Sneh: ¶ 19; emphasis added)
Thus, Sneh teaches contact to the metal feature 112 may be performed by soldering the metal feature, which disintegrates the WCC (said WCC including the metalcone layers 185, i.e. 183/184) at the location where the soldering is performed (Sneh: ¶ 50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the not-shown contacts to the contact portions 16, 18 of Popp (Figs. 3 and 6) (made to be Cu or Al as taught by Khalifa, above) using soldering, because Sneh teaches that contacts to “leads” (Sneh: ¶ 50), i.e. “contact portions” can be made by soldering. Moreover, Khalifa makes the connection to the contact pad 500 (of Al, Cu, Ag, inter alia) using soldering with Sn 630 (Khalifa: ¶ 95, supra). As such, soldering is consistent with the materials used for the contact pads of Popp/Khalifa.
So modified, the soldering would disintegrate, i.e. remove, the metalcone layer 40 of Popp only at the contact regions 32, 34 of the contact portions 16, 18, as taught in Sneh (Sneh: ¶ 50). The disintegration is a change in thickness of the metalcone layer 40 from the 2-7 nm original thickness to zero thickness at the point of soldering, as required by claim 19. Evidence comes from the Instant Application, which shows thickness shrinkage, i.e. at temperatures as low as 100 °C, as well as at 250 °C, while soldering occurs at a temperature of 200 °C to 300 °C (Instant Specification: ¶ 40 at p. 8 and ¶¶ 45-46 at p. 10). As such, the burden of proof is shifted to Applicant to prove the contrary. (See MPEP 2112(I)-(V).)
This is all of the elements of features [3] and [4] of claim 1 and claim 19.
With regard to claims 4-10, Popp discloses that the metalcone, e.g. alucone or titancone, can be made using ALD or MLD (9th page of Popp translation, lines 33-40). Popp does not, however, give the details of the ALD or MLD required by claims 4-10.
Sneh further provides the details of the ALD or MLD method of depositing a metalcone, e.g. titancone, including the features of claims 4-10, as follows:
With regard to claims 4, 5, and 9, Sneh further discloses,
4. (Original) The method of claim 1,
[1] wherein the depositing includes a plurality of cycles [¶ 39; Figs. 2A-2B, sufficient to get 2 nm, i.e. 20 Å (¶ 38)], and
[2] wherein each of the cycles forms 1 Å or more of the polymeric layer [e.g. titanicone].
5. (Original) The method of claim 4, wherein at least four of the cycles alternate between different species [i.e. TiCl4 and ethylene glycol; ¶¶ 38-39].
9. (Original) The method of claim 4, wherein each of the cycles forms from 1 Å to 3 Å of the polymeric layer.
With regard to claims 4 and 9, one molecular thickness/length of Ti-O-CH2-CH2-O is formed per cycle and is larger than 1 Å by summing the dimensions. In addition, the Instant Application uses the same ethylene glycol as the organic moiety that forms the largest portion of the molecular thickness/length to make the metalcone, e.g. zincone, having from 1 Å to 3 Å in a single cycle (Instant Specification: ¶ 33). Because a monolayer of Ti-O-CH2-CH2-O would have approximately the same dimension as a monolayer of Zn-O-CH2-CH2-O, it is held, absent evidence to the contrary, that the single cycle forming a monolayer of Ti-O-CH2-CH2-O would fall within the claimed range of 1 Å to 3 Å. As such, the burden of proof is shifted to Applicant to prove the contrary. (See MPEP 2112(I)-(V).)
With regard to claim 5, given the evidence of the dimension of 1 Å to 3 Å for a single cycle and that the thickness of titanicone layer in the WCC of Sneh is, e.g., 2 nm (Sneh: ¶ 38), more than 4 cycles would inherently be required to deposit 2 nm, i.e. a maximum of 12 Å (1.2 nm) could be formed in four cycles. As such, the burden of proof is shifted to Applicant to prove the contrary. (See MPEP 2112(I)-(V).)
With regard to claim 6, Sneh further teaches,
6. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 5, wherein one of the cycles uses a diol [i.e. propylene glycol; ¶ 40, last sentence], triol, or polyol and another of the 15cycles uses diethylzinc, trimethylaluminum [to deposit alucone; ¶¶ 39, 40], or tetrakisdimethylamidozirconium.
Sneh states that “reactive --Al--CH3 sites were found in aluminum-oxide-polymer-ceramics, Alucone” (¶ 39), which is the result of reacting “trimethyl aluminum Al(CH3)3” (¶ 35) with the exposed reactive group at the surface, as shown in Fig. 1A. In addition, Applicant uses the terminology “ethylene-Ticone” to describe the titanicone formed with cycles of TiCl4 and ethylene glycol, as shown in Figs. 2A-2B (¶ 39) and, as such, the “Al2O5C3H6 (propylene-alucone)” (¶ 40, last sentence) is formed with trimethyl aluminum and propylene glycol.
With regard to claims 7, 8, and 10, Sneh further teaches,
7. (Original) The method of claim 4, wherein the depositing includes injecting a purge gas between each of the cycles [¶ 40: “mixed ceramic-polymer ALD processes also required very effective purge cycles with high flow of pre-heated inert gas such as N2 preheated to 150° C.”.
8. (Original) The method of claim 7, wherein the purge gas is N2 or Ar [id.].
2010. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the depositing occurs in a chamber, and wherein a pressure of the chamber is from 0.001 Torr to 10 Torr during the depositing [e.g. 0.5 to 1 Torr for gas exposure and purge flow of 0.15 to 0.3 Torr; ¶ 35 or purge flow of <100 mTorr (= 0.1 Torr) or <50 mTorr (0.05 Torr); ¶ 40].
Thus, with regard to claims 4-10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the ALD or MLD processes and materials taught in Sneh to deposit the alucone or titancone barrier layer 40 of Popp because Popp is merely silent as to the ALD or MLD process such that one having ordinary skill in the art would use known processes for the same purpose of forming a protective metalcone, such as alucone or titancone on a metal, such as the process taught in Sneh.
This is all of the features of claims 4-10.
With regard to claims 11 and 12, Popp further discloses,
11. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the thickness is from 1 nm to 5 nm.
12. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the metalcone is a zincone, an alucone, or a zircone.
Popp further discloses that the barrier layer 40, of e.g. alucones or titancones (supra), can be made from 2-7 nm thick (9th page of Popp translation, lines 23-24), which is consistent with the thickness of the titancone in Sneh of 2 nm (Sneh: ¶ 38).
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); MPEP 2144.05(I)). In such a situation, Applicant must show that the particular ranges are critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). (See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A); emphasis added.)
With regard to claims 14 and 22, Popp further discloses,
14. (Original) The method of claim 1, further comprising depositing a dielectric layer 24 [i.e. “encapsulation”; 13th page of Popp translation under “List of Reference Numbers” and 8th page of translation, lines 20-28] on a side of the polymeric layer 40 opposite the surface [of the substrate 12].
22. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 14, wherein the dielectric layer 24 is one or more of alumina, GeO2, ZnO, ZrO2, SiOx, Si3N4, silicon oxynitride, TiO2, ZrO2, HfO2, SnO2, In2O3, or Ta2O5 [8th page of translation, lines 20-28].
With regard to claim 20, Popp modified according to Khalifa and Sneh further teaches,
20. (Previously Presented) A substrate 12 [of Popp] with the polymeric layer 40 [of Popp] deposited and the metal component soldered or bonded using the method of claim 1 [as further taught by Khalifa and Sneh, supra].
B. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popp in view of Schicktanz, Khalifa, and Sneh, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0127853 (“Pudas”).
Claims 2 and 3 read,
2. (Original) The method of claim 1, further comprising
[1] performing a surface treatment of the surface before depositing the polymeric layer,
[2] wherein the surface treatment reduces the surface.
3. (Original) The method of claim 2, wherein the surface treatment uses a hydrogen plasma.
The prior art of Popp in view of Schicktanz, Khalifa, and Sneh, as explained above, teaches each of the features of claim 1.
Popp does not teach performing a surface treatment on the surface of the substrate 12 including the metal component, i.e. contact pads 16, 18.
Sneh performs a surface treatment on the metal layer 111/112 before forming WCCs that includes cleaning and hydroxylating the surface in preparation of forming the first dielectric layer of aluminum oxide (Sneh: ¶¶ 32-33).
Pudas, like Popp and Sneh, forms a protective coating of, e.g. metalcone 200, on a substrate 10 including on metal features (Pudas: ¶¶ 5, 22-24, 69-70, 117), wherein the metalcone, e.g. alucone or titanicone, is formed by MLD (Pudas: ¶¶ 31, 44-45, 90-100—especially ¶¶ 95, 87; Figs. 2, 4A-4B). Also like Sneh, Pudas teaches that the metal component is cleaned prior to the ALD/MLD deposition (Pudas: ¶¶ 80-81). Pudas further teaches that the cleaning step includes reducing the surface using e.g. a hydrogen plasma (id.). Pudas further teaches pretreatment within the in the ALD reactor the includes in-situ cleaning the metal feature surface using oxygen, ozone, or hydrogen at 125 °C to burn, oxidize, or reduce surface species on the top surface (Pudas: ¶ 83).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a hydrogen plasma treatment in a cleaning process of the substrate 12 with the metal contact pads 16, 18 of Popp (made of e.g. Cu or Al, as taught in Khalifa), in order to clean the surface of the metal component 16, 18 prior to the formation of the metalcone. The motivation, before the filing date of the claimed invention, would be to provide a cleaning step consistent with the formation of a protective metalcone layer, as taught in Pudas. Therefore, Pudas may be seen as an improvement to the process of Popp/Sneh by providing a cleaning of the metal components and the substrate. (See MPEP 2143.)
This is all of the features of claims 2 and 3.
C. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popp in view of Schicktanz, Khalifa, and Sneh, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of US 2021/0163348 (“Gump”).
Claim 21 reads,
21. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 12, wherein the metalcone is the zincone.
The prior art of Popp in view of Schicktanz, Khalifa, and Sneh, as explained above, teaches each of the features of claims 1 and 12.
Popp does not disclose that the metalcone is zincone. It is noted, however, that Popp discloses alucone and titancone as non-limiting examples of the “dielectric barrier layer 40”, Popp using “for example” in the list of example materials.
Gump is directed to forming metalcone materials using ALD/MLD as protective layers on a variety of materials, including metals (Gump: ¶¶ 12, 21, 22). Table 1 at pages 7-9 of Gump lists at least fifty examples that include specific organometallic or inorganic metal precursors A coupled with specific organic precursors B used to deposit the “ALD/MLD Film”, i.e. directly on the substrate and therefore directly on the metal component on the surface of the substrate (supra)—using the cyclic MLD process, i.e. ABABAB… to form said metalcone “ALD/MLD Film”. Among the fifty examples are nine examples of zincones (Gump: Table 1, p. 8), but also the same examples used in Popp, i.e. alucones (12 examples) and titancones (8 examples).
Inasmuch as Popp and Gump teach overlapping metalcones for protection of metal features, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use zincone as the metalcone for the barrier layer 40 of Popp because it would be the substitution of one protective metalcone material for another that is suitable for protecting metal features. As such, the selection of zincone amounts to obvious material choice. (See MPEP 2144.07.)
D. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popp in view of Schicktanz, Khalifa, and Sneh, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US 2015/0171041 (“Chen”).
Claim 23 reads,
23. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, wherein the soldering or bonding occurs at a temperature from 200 ℃ to 300 ℃.
The prior art of Popp in view of Schicktanz, Khalifa, and Sneh, as explained above, teaches each of the features of claim 1.
Khalifa does not provide a temperature at which soldering occurs. However, as indicated above, Khalifa indicates that the solder material can be tin.
Chen teaches that when tin is used as a solder material to connect connecting elements 630 to contacts 614a, the temperature used is “approximately 200 ℃” (Chen: ¶ 35; Fig. 3A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use tin as the solder, as taught in Khalifa, and to use a temperature of about 200 ℃ because Chen teaches that about 200 ℃ is the temperature at which tin is used to solder together contacts.
V. Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues,
[1] The Office Action appears to agree that a metal component is not explicitly taught by Popp. [2] The Office Action alleges that Popp's contact portions 16 and 18 are metals because Popp says that the barrier layer 40 helps prevent oxidation of the contact portions 16 and 18. See Office Action at p. 5. Applicant respectfully disagrees. [3] Popp teaches that the dielectric barrier layer is used to stop outgassing of the dielectric layer beath [sic] it from contaminating the organic OLED layers. Popp translation at p. 5, 11. 48-53. Popp also teaches that the quality of the device can be improved by adding oxygen before application of the dielectric barrier layer. As explained in Popp, "a quality of the first electrode, in particular if it has a TCO [Transparent Conductive Oxide] layer or is formed thereof, can be improved by means of the elevated temperature" and "[f]urther improvement can be achieved by adding oxygen just prior to the application of the dielectric barrier layer." Id. at p. 6, 11. 18-21. Thus, Popp seeks to encourage oxygen under the barrier layer rather than prevent oxidation of any underlying material.
(Remarks filed 03/02/2026, paragraph bridging pp. 5-6)
With regard to points [1] and [2], Examiner agrees that Popp does not explicitly state that the contact portions 16, 18 are metals but implicitly inherently discloses that they must be metal because metal is the only class of electrical contact material (particularly to an underlying indium tin oxide electrode material layer 14(20)) that is subject to oxidation and benefits from protection from oxidation, said oxidation prevented by the metalcone barrier layer 40—as explicitly stated in Popp: “Covering the first [c]ontact portion [16] with the dielectric barrier layer [40] may help to reduce or prevent oxidation of the first contact portion” (3rd page of Popp translation, lines 40-41) and “Barrier layer 40 help to prevent the first contact region 32 and / or the second contact region 34 oxidize [sic; should be “from oxidizing”]” (10th page of Popp translation, line 19). As shown in the figures, “contact regions” 32, 34 are the exposed surfaces of contact portions 16, 18. In this regard, Popp states that “[t]he first contact region 32 serves for electrical contacting of the first contact portion 16 and the second contact portion 34 is for electrical [c]ontacting the second contact portion 18” (8th page of Popp translation, lines 36-38).
With regard to point [3], i.e. the remainder of the paragraph, Examiner acknowledges that this is another function of the dielectric barrier layer 40 directed to the interior of the OLED—not to the contact portions 16, 18. In this regard, Popp is using the same barrier layer 40, in its same capacity as an oxygen barrier layer, to prevent oxygen outgassing from the “insulator layers 44” into the “organic functional layer structure 22” and thereby decomposing them:
The insulator layers 44 are of the dielectric Barrier layer 40 covered. In particular, the covered Dielectric barrier layer 40 in Figure 4 above vertical surfaces, each extending in the lateral direction, and lateral side surfaces, which in extend the vertical direction, the insulator layers 44. The dielectric barrier layer 40 prevents outgassing of decomposition substances from the material of Insulator layer structure, in particular of the insulator layers 44.
(10th page of Popp translation, lines 39-45; emphasis added)
As such, the portion of Popp that Applicant has relied on is not relevant to the additional function of the dielectric barrier layer 40 of preventing oxidation of the contact portions 16, 18—which Applicant fails to acknowledge or address. Again, Popp states, “Covering the first [c]ontact portion [16] with the dielectric barrier layer [40] may help to reduce or prevent oxidation of the first contact portion [16]” (3rd page of Popp translation, lines 40-41) and “Barrier layer 40 help to prevent the first contact region 32 and / or the second contact region 34 oxidize [sic; should be “from oxidizing”]” (10th page of Popp translation, line 19).
Applicant further argues,
The Office Action also alleges that Popp's use of a metal to form contact portions 16 and 18 is inherent because the contact portions 16 and 18 can allegedly include silver. See Office Action at pp. 5-6.
(Remarks filed 03/02/2026, p. 6)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection did not, and currently does not, make the assertions that the contact portions 16, 18 are metal because they may be made from silver. That the contact portions 16, 18 could be made from silver is stated as obvious:
Thus, in addition to the inherent formation of the contact portions 16, 18 from metal, or in the alternative to said inherency, it would have been at least obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use metal contact portions 16, 18, e.g. Ag, in order to reduce the contact resistance and increase the conductivity to the first electrode 20, which may made from only ITO (id.).
(supra)
Moreover, claim 1 limits the metal to copper or aluminum. Even if, arguendo, the contact portions 16, 18 were not metal—a point with which Examiner disagrees given the evidence in Popp (supra)—the combination of Popp with Khalifa further renders making the contact portions 16, 18 of Popp from metal, e.g. Ag, Cu, Al, as explained in the rejection. In this regard, it has been held that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant further argues,
The Office Action also alleges it would be obvious to use a metal like silver as the contact portions 16 and 18. See Office Action at pp. 5-6. Applicant disagrees. If the Office Action takes the position that oxidation of the contact portions 16 and 18 should be prevented, then Popp teaches the opposite and seeks to add oxygen around the contact portions 16 and 18. Consequently, it would not be obvious to include a metal in the contact portions 16 and 18 given these conflicting teachings.
(Remarks filed 03/02/2026, p. 6)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s assertion contradicts that facts of record. Popp cannot desire to prevent oxidation of the contact portions 16, 18 while simultaneously, intentionally creating conditions that would promote their oxidation. Moreover, Applicant entirely fails to indicate what material can be used for the electrical contact portions 16, 18 that would be simultaneously not be a metal but also require oxidation prevention. In this regard, Applicant fails to meet it burden of proof that the contact portions 16, 18 of Popp are other than metal. And again, even if, arguendo, the contact portions 16, 18 were not metal—a point with which Examiner disagrees given the evidence in Popp (supra)—the combination of Popp with Khalifa further renders making the contact portions 16, 18 of Popp from metal, e.g. Ag, Cu, Al, as explained in the rejection.
Based on all of the foregoing, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIK KIELIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1693. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 10:00 AM-7:00 PM.
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, Wael Fahmy can be reached on 571-272-1705. 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.
Signed,
/ERIK KIELIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights