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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 11/24/2025 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
It is noted that an information disclosure statement (IDS) was not included in the electronic file wrapper of the instant application. Applicant is reminded of the duty to disclose information material to patentability as defined by 37 C.F.R. 1.56 (also see MPEP 2001).
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 3 and 14-17 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 term “little to no curl” in claim 3 line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “little to no curl” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination, “little to no curl” will be considered to refer to any amount of curling.
Claim 14 contains the limitation “curing the third layer of polyimide by subjecting the second layer of polyimide to an elevated temperature” in lines 11-12. It is unclear how subjecting the second layer of polyimide to elevated temperature cures the third layer of polyimide. For the purposes of examination, “curing the third layer of polyimide by subjecting the second layer of polyimide to an elevated temperature” will be considered to mean “curing the third layer of polyimide by subjecting the third layer of polyimide to an elevated temperature”.
Claims 15-17 depend from claim 14 and, therefore, also contain this limitation.
The term “little to no curl” in claim 15 line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “little to no curl” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination, “little to no curl” will be considered to refer to any amount of curling.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perfecto et al. (U.S. Patent 5,534,466, hereafter Perfecto ‘466).
Claim 1: Perfecto ‘466 teaches a method of coating a multilayer thin film (abstract, Figs. 10-14) comprising:
coating a first layer (48) of polyimide onto a carrier (20) (Fig. 10, col 5 ln 46-60), where coating the polyimide includes curing the polyimide by subjecting it to an elevated temperature (col 6 ln 18-43);
depositing a first layer of metal (24) on the first layer of polyimide (Fig. 11, col 5 ln 46-60); and
coating a second layer of polyimide (26) on the first layer of metal (Figs. 12-13, col 4 ln 30-44, col 5 ln 46-60), where coating the polyimide includes curing the polyimide by subjecting it to an elevated temperature (col 6 ln 18-43).
Claim 2: Perfecto ‘466 teaches that the method can further comprise releasing the multilayer film from the carrier without using laser ablation (Fig. 14, col 5 ln 46-60, col 6 ln 18-29).
Claim 3: Perfecto ‘466 teaches that the multilayer film has little curling (Figs. 10-15).
Claim 4: Perfecto ‘466 teaches that the method can further comprise:
depositing a second layer of metal (32) on the second layer of polyimide (Fig. 12, col 4 ln 30-44, col 5 ln 46-60); and
coating a third layer of polyimide (34) on the second layer of metal (Fig. 12, col 4 ln 30-54, col 5 ln 46-60), where coating the polyimide includes curing the polyimide by subjecting it to an elevated temperature (col 6 ln 18-43).
Claim 5: Perfecto ‘466 teaches that the carrier can be glass (col 2 ln 50-55), which is a material that comprises silicon.
Claim 6: Perfecto ‘466 teaches that the carrier can be glass (col 2 ln 50-55).
Claim 7: Perfecto ‘466 teaches that polyimide can be deposited to a thickness of 12 microns (col 6 ln 18-43).
Claim 13: Perfecto ‘466 teaches that the first layer of metal is deposited in a pattern that does not cover an entire surface of the first layer of polyimide (Fig. 11).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perfecto et al. ‘466 as applied to claim 1 above.
Claim 9: Perfecto ‘466 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Perfecto ‘466 further teaches that the first layer of metal can have a thickness of between 10 and 1000 nanometers (col 4 ln 11-29).
With respect to claim 9, Perfecto ‘466 does not explicitly teach that the first layer of metal is from about 100 nanometers to about 200 nanometers thick.
However, the claimed first layer of metal thickness range of from about 100 nanometers to about 200 nanometers is obvious over the first layer of metal thickness range of between 10 and 1000 nanometers taught by Perfecto ‘466 because they overlap. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 8, 10-11, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perfecto et al. ‘466 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0126070, hereafter Kim ‘070).
Claim 8: Perfecto ‘466 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Perfecto ‘466 further teaches that the metal can be copper (col 4 ln 11-29) and that the multilayer thin film is for an electronic device (col 1 ln 5-10).
With respect to claim 8, Perfecto ‘466 does not explicitly teach that the metal comprises molybdenum.
Kim ‘070 teaches a method of coating a multi-layer thin film for an electronic device (abstract) comprising forming metal layers and polyimide layers ([0140], [0153]). Kim ‘070 teaches that copper and molybdenum are functional equivalents for the purposes of being the metal ([0140]). Both Kim ‘070 and Perfecto ‘466 teach methods of coating a multi-layer thin film for an electronic device (‘466, abstract, col 1 ln 5-10; ‘070, abstract) comprising forming metal layers and polyimide layers (‘466, col 4 ln 30-44, col 5 ln 46-60; ‘070, [0140], [0153]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the molybdenum taught by Kim ‘070 for the copper used in the method taught by Perfecto ‘466 because copper and molybdenum are functional equivalents, as taught by Kim ‘070.
Claim 10: Perfecto ‘466 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Perfecto ‘466 further teaches that the method can further comprise depositing a dielectric barrier layer (42) on the second layer of polyimide (Figs. 13-14, col 5 ln 3-14, col 5 ln 46-60) and fabricating a device on the barrier layer (Figs. 13-14, col 5 ln 3-14, col 5 ln 46-60).
With respect to claim 10, Perfecto ‘466 does not explicitly teach that the device is a thin film transistor based device.
Kim ‘070 teaches a method of coating a multi-layer thin film for an electronic device (abstract) comprising forming metal layers and polyimide layers ([0140], [0153]). Kim ‘070 teaches that the multilayer thin film can connected to a device (abstract, [0008]), where the device can be a thin film transistor device (abstract, [0008]). Both Kim ‘070 and Perfecto ‘466 teach methods of coating a multi-layer thin film for an electronic device (‘466, abstract, col 1 ln 5-10; ‘070, abstract) comprising forming metal layers and polyimide layers (‘466, col 4 ln 30-44, col 5 ln 46-60; ‘070, [0140], [0153]).
Therefore, 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 thin film transistor device taught by Kim ‘070 as the device in the method taught by Perfecto ‘466 because it would have been a simple substitution that would have yielded predictable results.
Claim 11: With respect to claim 11, the modified teachings of Perfecto ‘466 do not explicitly teach that the dielectric barrier layer comprises silicon nitride.
Kim ‘070 teaches a method of coating a multi-layer thin film for an electronic device (abstract) comprising forming metal layers and polyimide layers ([0140], [0153]). Kim ‘070 teaches that silicon nitride is a suitable material for a dielectric layer ([0131], [0140], [0153], [0164]). Both Kim ‘070 and Perfecto ‘466 teach methods of coating a multi-layer thin film for an electronic device (‘466, abstract, col 1 ln 5-10; ‘070, abstract) comprising forming metal layers and polyimide layers (‘466, col 4 ln 30-44, col 5 ln 46-60; ‘070, [0140], [0153]).
Therefore, 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 silicon nitride taught by Kim ‘070 as the material of the dielectric barrier layer in the method taught by the modified teachings of Perfecto ‘466 because it is a suitable material for a dielectric layer. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 14: Perfecto ‘466 teaches a method of making a multilayer thin film (abstract, Figs. 10-14) comprising:
coating a first layer (48) of polyimide onto a carrier (20) (Fig. 10, col 5 ln 46-60), where coating the polyimide includes curing the polyimide by subjecting it to an elevated temperature (col 6 ln 18-43);
depositing a first layer of metal (24) on the first layer of polyimide (Fig. 11, col 5 ln 46-60);
coating a second layer of polyimide (26) on the first layer of metal (Figs. 12-13, col 4 ln 30-44, col 5 ln 46-60), where coating the polyimide includes curing the polyimide by subjecting it to an elevated temperature (col 6 ln 18-43);
depositing a second layer of metal (32) on the second layer of polyimide (Fig. 12, col 4 ln 30-44, col 5 ln 46-60); and
coating a third layer of polyimide (34) on the second layer of metal (Fig. 12, col 4 ln 30-54, col 5 ln 46-60), where coating the polyimide includes curing the polyimide by subjecting it to an elevated temperature (col 6 ln 18-43);
depositing a dielectric barrier layer (42) on the third layer of polyimide (Figs. 13-14, col 5 ln 3-14, col 5 ln 46-60);
fabricating a device on the barrier layer (Figs. 13-14, col 5 ln 3-14, col 5 ln 46-60); and
releasing the multilayer film from the carrier without using laser ablation (Fig. 14, col 5 ln 46-60, col 6 ln 18-29).
With respect to claim 14, Perfecto ‘466 does not explicitly teach that the device is a thin film transistor based device.
Kim ‘070 teaches a method of coating a multi-layer thin film for an electronic device (abstract) comprising forming metal layers and polyimide layers ([0140], [0153]). Kim ‘070 teaches that the multilayer thin film can connected to a device (abstract, [0008]), where the device can be a thin film transistor device (abstract, [0008]). Both Kim ‘070 and Perfecto ‘466 teach methods of coating a multi-layer thin film for an electronic device (‘466, abstract, col 1 ln 5-10; ‘070, abstract) comprising forming metal layers and polyimide layers (‘466, col 4 ln 30-44, col 5 ln 46-60; ‘070, [0140], [0153]).
Therefore, 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 thin film transistor device taught by Kim ‘070 as the device in the method taught by Perfecto ‘466 because it would have been a simple substitution that would have yielded predictable results.
Claim 15: Perfecto ‘466 teaches that the multilayer film has little curling (Figs. 10-15).
Claim 16: Perfecto ‘466 teaches that the first layer of metal is deposited in a pattern that does not cover an entire surface of the first layer of polyimide (Fig. 11) and the second layer of metal is deposited in a pattern that does not cover an entire surface of the second layer of polyimide (Fig. 12).
Claim 17: Perfecto ‘466 teaches that polyimide can be deposited to a thickness of 12 microns (col 6 ln 18-43), and that the first layer of metal can have a thickness of between 10 and 1000 nanometers (col 4 ln 11-29).
With respect to claim 17, the modified teachings of Perfecto ‘466 do not explicitly teach that the first layer of metal is from about 100 nanometers to about 200 nanometers thick.
However, the claimed first layer of metal thickness range of from about 100 nanometers to about 200 nanometers is obvious over the first layer of metal thickness range of between 10 and 1000 nanometers taught by Perfecto ‘466 because they overlap. See MPEP 2144.05.
With respect to claim 17, the modified teachings of Perfecto ‘466 do not explicitly teach that the second layer of metal is from about 100 nanometers to about 200 nanometers thick.
However, the claimed method differs from the method taught by the modified teachings of Perfecto ‘466 only in the thickness of the second metal layer, and it has been held that changes in size are obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perfecto et al. ‘466 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Loo et al. (U.S. Patent 6,228,673, hereafter Loo ‘673).
Claim 12: Perfecto ‘466 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Perfecto ‘466 further teaches that subjecting the first layer of polyimide to an elevated temperature is at a temperature of 400°C (col 6 ln 18-43), and that the multilayer thin film is for an electronic device (col 1 ln 5-10).
With respect to claim 12, Perfecto ‘466 does not explicitly teach that the method includes exposing the first layer of polyimide to an inert atmosphere prior to curing, or that subjecting the first layer of polyimide to an elevated temperature is for 1 hour.
Loo ‘673 teaches a method of making a multilayer film for an electronic device (abstract, col 1 ln 5-8) comprising curing a polyimide layer (col 5 ln 4-19). Loo ‘673 teaches that curing polyimide can comprise placing the polyimide in a nitrogen atmosphere then heat cure for 1 hour (col 5 ln 4-19). Both Loo ‘673 and Perfecto ‘466 teach methods of making a multilayer film for an electronic device (‘466, col 4 ln 30-44, col 5 ln 46-60; ‘673, abstract, col 1 ln 5-8).
Therefore, 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 nitrogen atmosphere and curing time of 1 hour taught by Loo ‘673 as the curing atmosphere and time in the method taught by Perfecto ‘466 because it is a suitable curing atmosphere and time for polyimide, as taught by Loo ‘673.
Further, it would have been a simple substitution that would have yielded predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADFORD M GATES whose telephone number is (571)270-3558. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at (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 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.
/BG/
/JOSHUA L ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1713