DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made to the amendment received 12/29/2025.
Acknowledgement is made to the amendment of claims 12, 14, and 41.
Acknowledgement is made to the cancellation of claims 1-11 and 17-31.
Acknowledgement is made to the newly added claims 45.
Any claims listed above as cancelled have sufficiently overcome any rejections set forth in any of the prior office actions.
Claims 12-16 and 32-45 are pending. A complete action on the merits appears below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-16, 37-43, and 45 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "respective electrically conductive metallic deposits" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "electrically conductive island" in the first line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], 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.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, 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. A claim must depend from a preceding claim. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 12-14, 16 32, and 34-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 20180114802 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Lin teaches an apparatus (Fig. 1 array substrate 100) comprising:
an electrically-conductive layer (Fig. 1; first metal layer 105), comprising a first face and a second face that are opposite one another;
a first electrically-insulative layer (Fig. 1; insulating layer 106) that is shaped to define an aperture (Fig. 1; through hole structure 107) and that covers the first face without covering portions of the first face that are aligned with the aperture; and
respective electrically-conductive metallic deposit (Fig. 1; second metal layer 1031) that (i) directly contacts the portions of the first face of the electrically-conductive layer that are aligned with the aperture and (ii) at least partly fill the apertures ([0039]- [0040]), the respective electrically-conductive metallic deposits comprising a metal material; and
a second electrically-insulative layer (Fig. 1; passivation layer 104, [0065] teaches the passivation layer as being an insulating film) that covers the second face.
However, Lin fails to teach the aperture as being a plurality of apertures and the electrically-conductive metallic deposit that fills the aperture as being electrically-conductive metallic deposits as there is only one listed aperture.
While Lin does not explicitly teach the aperture and therefore the electrically-conductive metallic deposit that fills the aperture as being plural apertures and electrically-conductive metallic deposits, there is no evidence that more than one of this element makes a meaningful difference to the function of the device compared to the currently taught aperture and electrically-conductive metallic deposit and it has been held that a duplication of parts is an obvious modification, as the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Regarding claim 12, Lin as modified further teaches the apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the first electrically- insulative layer (Fig. 1; insulating layer 106) comprises a first surface and a second surface that are opposite one another, wherein the electrically-conductive layer (Fig. 1; first metal layer 105) coats the first surface of the first electrically-insulative layer ([0039]), and wherein the apparatus further comprises:
a plurality of electrically-conducting islands (Fig. 1; bias electrode 1032) that coat respective portions of the second surface of the first electrically-insulative layer that surround the apertures ([0039]),
the respective electrically-conductive metallic deposits filling the apertures and electrically connecting the electrically-conductive layer to the electrically-conducting islands ([0039]- [0040]).
Lin further fails to teach the electrically-conducting island as being a plurality of electrically-conducting islands.
While Lin does not explicitly teach the electrically-conducting island as being plural electrically-conducting islands, there is no evidence that more than one of this element makes a meaningful difference to the function of the device compared to the currently taught electrically-conducting island and it has been held that a duplication of parts is an obvious modification, as the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Regarding claim 13, Lin as modified further teaches the apparatus according to claim 12, the metallic deposits further covering the islands ([0043]).
Regarding claim 16, Lin as modified further teaches the apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the electrically- conductive metallic deposits further cover respective portions of the first electrically-insulative layer that surround the apertures ([0039], [0043]).
Regarding claim 32, Lin as modified further teaches the apparatus of claim 12, the electrically-conducting islands being shaped to surround the apertures ([0039]).
Regarding claim 34, Lin as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 14,
the electrically-conductive layer comprising an electrically-conductive plate ([0039]- [0040], [0043] teach this limitation as broadly as is currently is claimed in view of applicant’s disclosure as a whole),
the first electrically-insulative layer comprising a first electrically-insulative cover coupled to the first face of the electrically-conductive plate ([0039]- [0040], [0043] teach this limitation as broadly as is currently is claimed in view of applicant’s disclosure as a whole), and
the second electrically-insulative layer comprising a second electrically-insulative cover coupled to the second face of the electrically-conductive plate ([0039]- [0040], [0043] teach this limitation as broadly as is currently is claimed in view of applicant’s disclosure as a whole).
Regarding claim 35, Lin teaches the apparatus according to claim 34, the electrically-conductive plate comprising one or more side faces disposed between the first face and the second face, and wherein the second electrically-insulative cover covers the side faces (as the recited elements are shown as being aligned along at least one axis, as broadly as is currently claimed, these elements “cover” the portions of the side faces of the these corresponding portions of the cited embodiment along the portion where the elements are directly contacting one another, however, in an attempt to forward prosecution, an additional reference has been provided in the conclusion which teaches this element in accordance with applicant’s disclosure).
Regarding claim 36, Lin teaches the apparatus according to claim 34, the apparatus comprising an electrically-insulative case that comprises the first cover and the second cover (Fig. 1 shows these elements as being overlapping along at least one axis, as broadly as is currently claimed).
Regarding claim 37, Lin as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 14, the respective electrically- conductive metallic deposits filling the apertures ([0039]- [0040]).
Regarding claim 38, Lin as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the first electrically-insulative layer (Fig. 1; insulating layer 106) comprises a first surface and a second surface that are opposite one another, wherein the electrically-conductive layer (Fig. 1; first metal layer 105) coats the first surface of the electrically-insulative layer, and wherein the electrically-conductive metallic deposits at least partly fills the apertures such that each respective electrically-conductive metallic deposit at least partially fills the apertures from the first surface to the second surface ([0039]- [0040], [0043]).
Regarding claim 39, Lin as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the first electrically-insulative layer (Fig. 1; insulating layer 106) comprises a first surface and a second surface that are opposite one another, wherein the electrically-conductive layer (Fig. 1; first metal layer 105) coats the first surface of the electrically-insulative layer, and wherein the electrically-conductive metallic deposits fills the apertures such that each respective electrically-conductive metallic deposit fills the apertures from the first surface to the second surface ([0039]- [0040], [0043]).
Regarding claim 40, Lin as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the respective electrically- conductive metallic deposits are aligned with the apertures such that the electrically-conductive metallic deposits extend to and terminate at the first face of the electrically-conductive layer ([0039]- [0040], [0043]).
Regarding claim 41, Lin teaches an apparatus (Fig. 1; array substrate 100) comprising:
an electrically-conductive layer (Fig. 1; first metal layer 105), comprising a first face and a second face that are opposite one another;
a first electrically-insulative layer (Fig. 1; insulating layer 106), comprising a first surface and a second surface that are opposite one another, the first electrically-insulative layer being shaped (i) to define an aperture (Fig. 1; through hole structure 107), the aperture extending from the first surface to the second surface, and (ii) to cover a first portion of the first face without covering second portions of the first face that are aligned with the apertures; and
respective electrically-conductive metallic deposit (Fig. 1; second metal layer 1031) that (i) directly contacts the second portions of the first face of the electrically-conductive layer that are aligned with the aperture and (ii) at least partly fill the aperture in a predetermined direction defined as extending from the second surface towards the first surface ([0039]- [0040]), the respective electrically-conductive metallic deposits comprising a metal material.
However, Lin fails to teach the aperture as being a plurality of apertures and the electrically-conductive metallic deposit that fills the aperture as being electrically-conductive metallic deposits as there is only one listed aperture.
While Lin does not explicitly teach the aperture and therefore the electrically-conductive metallic deposit that fills the aperture as being plural apertures and electrically-conductive metallic deposits, there is no evidence that more than one of this element makes a meaningful difference to the function of the device compared to the currently taught aperture and electrically-conductive metallic deposit and it has been held that a duplication of parts is an obvious modification, as the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Regarding claim 42, Lin as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 41, wherein the electrically-conductive layer coats the first surface of the electrically-insulative layer ([0039]- [0040], [0043]), and wherein the apparatus further comprises:
an electrically-conducting island (Fig. 1; bias electrode 1032) that coat respective portions of the second surface of the electrically-insulative layer that surround the apertures,
the respective electrically-conductive metallic deposits (i) filling, in the predetermined direction, the apertures and (ii) electrically connecting the electrically-conductive layer to the electrically-conducting island ([0039]).
Lin further fails to teach the electrically-conducting island as being a plurality of electrically-conducting islands.
While Lin does not explicitly teach the electrically-conducting island as being plural electrically-conducting islands, there is no evidence that more than one of this element makes a meaningful difference to the function of the device compared to the currently taught electrically-conducting island and it has been held that a duplication of parts is an obvious modification, as the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Regarding claim 43, Lin as modified further teaches the apparatus according to claim 41, wherein the respective electrically- conductive metallic deposits are aligned with the apertures such that the electrically-conductive metallic deposits extend to and terminate at the first face of the electrically-conductive layer ([0039]- [0040]).
Regarding claim 44, Lin further teaches the apparatus according to claim 41, further comprising a second electrically- insulative layer that covers the second face (Fig. 1; passivation layer 104, [0065] teaches the passivation layer as being an insulating film).
Regarding claim 45, Lin teaches an apparatus (Fig. 1; array substrate 100) comprising:
an electrically-conductive layer (Fig. 1; first metal layer 105), comprising a first face and a second face that are opposite one another;
a first electrically-insulative layer (Fig. 1; insulating layer 106) that is shaped to define an aperture (Fig. 1; through hole structure 107) and that covers the first face without covering portions of the first face that are aligned with the aperture; and
respective electrically-conductive metal deposit (Fig. 1; second metal layer 1031) that (i) directly contact the portions of the first face of the electrically-conductive layer that are aligned with the apertures, (ii) at least partly fill the apertures, and (iii) extend to and terminate at the first face of the electrically- conductive layer ([0039]- [0040]); and
a second electrically-insulative layer (Fig. 1; passivation layer 104, [0065] teaches the passivation layer as being an insulating film) that covers the second face.
However, Lin fails to teach the aperture as being a plurality of apertures and the electrically-conductive metallic deposit that fills the aperture as being electrically-conductive metallic deposits as there is only one listed aperture.
While Lin does not explicitly teach the aperture and therefore the electrically-conductive metallic deposit that fills the aperture as being plural apertures and electrically-conductive metallic deposits, there is no evidence that more than one of this element makes a meaningful difference to the function of the device compared to the currently taught aperture and electrically-conductive metallic deposit and it has been held that a duplication of parts is an obvious modification, as the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 20180114802 A1) in view of Nakazato (US 20180180566 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Lin as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 14.
However, Lin fails to teach the apparatus wherein the electrically- conductive metallic deposits comprise gold.
Lin instead teaches this element as being comprised of a silicon layer ([0044]).
Nakazato teaches an integrated circuit formed on a substrate using a variety of layers, such as a semiconductor layer ([0104]).
Nakazato further teaches the semiconductor layer as being formed of a variety of materials, such as silicon or gold ([0104]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to have substituted the semiconductor layer disposed on a substrate as being silicon as is taught by Lin with the semiconductive layer of a substrate being gold as is taught by Nakazato as both materials perform the same function of acting as semiconductors within a semiconductive layer of a substrate based circuit and it has been held that substituting parts of an invention which perform the same function involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.06(II).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 20180114802 A1) in view of Kaufman (US 20150057548 A1).
Regarding claim 33, Lin as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 32.
However, Lin as modified fails to teach the apparatus, each electrically conductive island comprising a torus shape.
Specifically, Lin is silent on the three-dimensional geometric shape of the layers of the array substrate, including the layers of the detection unit.
Kaufman teaches a substrate based array having a detecting element ([0025]).
Kaufman further teaches the detector element as being ring-shaped ([0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the detection element of the array substrate as is taught by Lin, to be in the form of any known suitable shape, the detecting element on the array substrate being a ring shape, as is taught by Kaufman. Additionally, it has been held that a change of shape is an obvious modification (MPEP 2144.04(V)(B)), specifically as there is no evidence that using a known suitable shape, such as a simple geometric shape, would produce a predictable result that would be unexpected by a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Specifically, applicant’s arguments of the limitations that art not taught by the Lin reference are moot in view of the newly provided rejection under Lin
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY REGAN LANCASTER whose telephone number is (571)272-7259. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-4 EST.
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, Linda Dvorak can be reached on 571-272-4764. 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.
/LINDA C DVORAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/L.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights