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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 4 and 7-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: i) inconsistent terminologies. Changing “the first protrusion” to “the plurality of first protrusions” (claim 1), “the second protrusions to “the plurality of second protrusions (claims 1 and 4) and “the wires” to “the plurality of wires” (claim 9), are suggested; ii) “a” should be inserted before “physical” (claim 4, last line) 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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claimed limitation of “a shape of the first protrusions”, as recited in claim 1, is unclear as to a shape of each or one of the first protrusions applicant refers.
The claimed limitation of “a shape of the openings”, as recited in claim 1, is unclear as to a shape of each or one of the openings applicant refers.
The claimed limitation of “a width of tops of the openings”, as recited in claim 1, is unclear as to a width of each, one or total of tops of the openings applicant refers.
The claimed limitation of “a width of bottoms of the openings”, as recited in claim 1, is unclear as to a width of each, one or total of bottoms of the openings applicant refers.
The claimed limitation of “a metal circuit”, as recited in claim 1, last line, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from “a metal circuit”, as recited in claim 1, line 2.
The claimed limitation of “the metal circuit”, as recited in claims 2, 4 and 7-9, is unclear as to which metal circuit applicant refers: claim 1 line 2 and/or last line.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 and 7-9, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (2009/0023288) in view of Choi et al. (2002/0094496).
As for claim 1, Jeong et al. teach in Figs. 1, 2A-2J and related text a method for fabricating a metal circuit, comprising:
providing an imprinting mold 10, wherein a side surface of the imprinting mold has a plurality of first protrusions 10a arranged in an array (S1; Fig. 2A);
coating a photoresist solution 4 on a side surface of a substrate 2/1 to form a liquid photoresist layer which is uncured (Fig. 1: S4; Fig. 2A);
pressing the first protrusions of the imprinting mold onto the liquid photoresist layer (S6; Fig. 2B);
curing the liquid photoresist layer to form a solid photoresist layer (Fig. 2C; [0026]);
removing the imprinting mold from the solid photoresist layer in a same horizontal direction as the side surface of the substrate to obtain the solid photoresist layer which is patterned, wherein the solid photoresist layer comprises a plurality of second protrusions 4a and openings arranged in an array, a shape of the first protrusions matches a shape of the openings (S8; Figs. 2D-2E);
forming a metal layer 5 on upper surfaces of the second protrusions and in the openings (Fig. 2H); and
peeling off the second protrusions and parts of the metal layer formed on the upper surfaces of the second protrusions, wherein remaining parts of the metal layer form a metal circuit 5 (Fig. 2J).
Jeong et al. do not disclose the first protrusions are shaped as isosceles trapezoids, a width of tops of the openings is less than a width of bottoms of the openings.
Choi et al. teach in Fig. 9 and related text the first protrusions 905 are shaped as isosceles trapezoids.
Jeong et al. and Choi et al. are analogous art because they are directed to imprint lithography processes and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Jeong et al. with the specified feature(s) of Choi because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the first protrusions being shaped as isosceles trapezoids, as taught by Choi et al., in Jeong et al.'s device, in order to use an application which requires the first protrusions with isosceles trapezoids shaped.
Furthermore, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Therefore, the combined device shows a width of tops of the openings is less than a width of bottoms of the openings.
As for claims 2, 7 and 9, Jeong et al. and Choi et al. disclosed substantially the entire claimed invention, as applied to claim 1 above, including under a condition of ultraviolet light, the liquid photoresist layer is cured to form the solid photoresist layer (claim 2; Jeong: [0026]); and “the metal circuit comprises a plurality of wires (claim 9; Jeong: Fig. 2J).
Jeong et al. and Choi et al. do not disclose the liquid photoresist layer is cured for 60 s-100 s (claim 2); the width of the tops of the openings is 30 µm -50 µm, and the width of the bottoms of the openings is 40 µm-60 µm (claim 7); and a width of the wires is 40 µm -60 µm, and a thickness of the wires is 3000 Å -6000 Å.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the liquid photoresist layer being cured for 60 s-100 s; the width of the tops of the openings being 30 µm -50 µm, and the width of the bottoms of the openings being 40 µm -60 µm; and a width of the wires being 40 µm -60 µm, and a thickness of the wires being 3000 Å -6000 Å, in order to optimize the performance of the device. Furthermore, it has been held that where then general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Furthermore, it has been held in that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
As for claim 4, the combined device shows the forming the metal layer on the upper surfaces of the second protrusions and in the openings comprises:
depositing a metal material on the upper surfaces of the second protrusions and in the openings by physical vapor deposition to form the metal layer (Jeong: [0030]).
As for claim 8, the combined device shows the metal layer is made of one or more of molybdenum, titanium, copper, and silver (Jeong: [0030]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 4 and 7-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEIYA LI whose telephone number is (571)270-1572. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM.
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, LYNNE GURLEY can be reached on (571)272-1670. 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.
/MEIYA LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
