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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, Applicant argues that Perfecto et al. (U.S. Patent 5,534,466, hereafter Perfecto ‘466) does not teach that the first layer of polyimide is coated directly onto a carrier and instead is coated onto a release layer. This is not found persuasive because the release layer of Perfecto ‘466 is part of the claimed “carrier”, as discussed below, and Perfecto ‘466 teaches that the first polyimide layer is coated directly on it, as discussed below.
With respect to claim 14, Applicant argues that Perfecto ‘466 does not teach that the first layer of polyimide is coated onto the carrier such that the first layer of polyimide is in contact with the carrier and the multi-layered flexible electronic device is released from the carrier without laser ablation by mechanically delaminating the device from the carrier and without the use of additional solvents. This is not found persuasive because these limitations are not in claim 14. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 2 have been considered as to the point that Perfecto ‘466 does not teach releasing the multi-layered polymer from the carrier by mechanically delaminating but are moot based on the new grounds of rejection.
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, 4-7, 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 directly onto a carrier (20,22) (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 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) 2 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 Lin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0121449, hereafter Lin ‘449).
Claim 2: Perfecto ‘466 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. 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), where releasing the multilayer film from the carrier can comprise chemical etching (col 5 ln 46-60, col 6 ln 18-29), and the multilayer thin film can be for a multichip module (abstract).
With respect to claim 2, Perfecto ‘466 does not explicitly teach that releasing the multilayer film from the carrier is by mechanical delaminating the multilayer film from the carrier.
Lin ‘449 teaches a method of making a multilayer film for a multilayer chip module (abstract, [0035]) comprising releasing the multilayer film from a carrier (Figs. 3a-e, [0045]). Lin ‘449 teaches that chemical etching and mechanical peel-off are functional equivalents for the purposes of releasing the carrier from the multilayer film ([0045]). Both Lin ‘449 and Perfecto ‘466 teach methods of making a multilayer film for a multilayer chip module (‘466, abstract; ‘449, abstract, [0035]).
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 mechanical peel-off taught by Lin ‘449 for the chemical etch used in the step of releasing the multilayer film from the carrier in the method taught by Perfecto ‘466 because chemical etching and mechanical peel-off are functional equivalents for the purposes of releasing the carrier from the multilayer film, as taught by Lin ‘449.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perfecto et al. ‘466 in view of Lin et al. ‘449 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Morooka et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0190082, hereafter Morooka ‘082).
Claim 3: The modified teachings of Perfecto ‘466 teach the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above. With respect to claim 3, they do not explicitly teach that the multilayer film is characterized by a radius of curvature of from about 400mm to about 100000mm.
Morooka ‘082 teaches a method of making a multilayer film comprising polyimide (abstract, [0089]). Morooka ‘082 teaches that the radius of curvature of curling of the film affects the stresses on the film ([0004]). Both Morooka ‘082 and Perfecto ‘466 teach methods of making a multilayer film comprising polyimide (‘466, abstract, col 5 ln 46-60; ‘082, abstract, [0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the radius of curvature of the multilayer film in the method taught by the modified teachings of Perfecto ‘466 because the radius of curvature of curling of the film affects the stresses on the film, as taught by Morooka ‘082. See MPEP 2144.05.II.
Claim(s) 8, 10-11, 14, and 16-17 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 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.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perfecto et al. ‘466 in view of Kim ‘070 as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Morooka et al. ‘082.
Claim 15: The modified teachings of Perfecto ‘466 teach the limitations of claim 14, as discussed above. With respect to claim 15, they do not explicitly teach that the multilayer film is characterized by a radius of curvature of from about 400mm to about 100000mm.
Morooka ‘082 teaches a method of making a multilayer film comprising polyimide (abstract, [0089]). Morooka ‘082 teaches that the radius of curvature of curling of the film affects the stresses on the film ([0004]). Both Morooka ‘082 and Perfecto ‘466 teach methods of making a multilayer film comprising polyimide (‘466, abstract, col 5 ln 46-60; ‘082, abstract, [0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the radius of curvature of the multilayer film in the method taught by the modified teachings of Perfecto ‘466 because the radius of curvature of curling of the film affects the stresses on the film, as taught by Morooka ‘082. See MPEP 2144.05.II.
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 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/
/SHAMIM AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights