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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶ 113 of the submitted specification, replace “(the secant of the inclination angle” with “(the secant of the inclination angle).”
Claim Objections
Claims 2–18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 should be amended to end with a period.
In claim 7 on line 2, a comma should be added between “patterns” and “each.”
In claim 8 on line 3, a comma should be added between “patterns” and “each.”
Claim 8 recites, “a plurality of filtering patterns[,] each filtering pattern comprising a pattern formed by a plurality of gaps, the gaps designed to allow the laser beam to pass through the mirror layer and the sealant layer to produce cuts on the substrate.” The language is objectionable because it is largely duplicated from claim 7 from which it depends (ll. 2–4), except that claim 8 adds the “mirror layer.” The duplicated language should be struck, or otherwise modified so as to make it less duplicative.
Claim 8 should be amended to end with a period.
Claim 9, line 4, should be amended to strike “are” and “that.”
Claim 10, line 10, should be amended to recite “one or more of the isolated fringes” to recognize antecedent basis from earlier in the claim.
Claim 11, line 3, should be amended to replace “configured” with “is configured” or “are configured.”
Claim 12, line 5, should be amended to replace “a plurality of filtering patterns” with “the plurality of filtering patterns” to recognize the antecedent basis provided earlier in the claim.
Claim 13, line 2, should be amended to replace “comprising” with “comprises.”
Claim 14, line 2, should be amended to replace “comprising” with “comprises.”
Claim 15 should be amended to replace “graphene layer” with “a graphene layer.”
Claims 3–6 and 16–18 are objected to due to dependency upon an objected-to claim.
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.
Claims 1–11 and 18 are 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 1 recites that “the pattern formed by the plurality of gaps is one a 1 to 1 scale to the cuts on the substrate.” The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it attempts to define the function (and thereby, structure) of the invention by the outcome of its use. While this is permissible in instances where the resultant structure is clear, here, the structure is not clear since this claim only concerns a single filtering pattern (given what is disclosed, this limits the structural implications that can be made by functional language), and the cuts on the substrate would depend on how a laser was used, and are not definable solely by the intended outcome.
Claim 7 recites “the sealant layer” and “the substrate” (l. 4). Neither of these limitations have antecedent basis. Similarly, claim 8 recites “the mirror layer” and “the sealant layer” in the same way.
Claim 7 ends by reciting “the maximum diversion angle of the laser source,” but this limitation lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 9 recites, “The filtering device for the collimation of a laser beam according to claim 7, suitable for the production of high-density supercapacitors having high energy capacity.” Claims 10 and 11 each recite similar language. The limitation renders each claim indefinite because, firstly, it’s unclear if this is supposed to be a part of the preamble or the body of the claim, which affects claim interpretation (MPEP § 2111.02). If the limitation is supposed to be a part of the preamble, it is inappropriate since the preamble is defined by the independent claim (here, 7), but this language is missing from that claim. If the limitation is supposed to be a part of the body of the claim, the limitation would render the claim indefinite because of how it uses relative terms (“high-density,” “high energy capacity”; see MPEP § 2173.05(b)).
Claim 18 recites “a mirror off of the axis of the laser beam, the mirror configured to deflect reflected laser beams.” The limitation renders the claim indefinite because a mirror off of the axis of the laser beam would not interact with the laser beam as suggested in the claim. It’s the Office’s impression that Applicant is meaning to suggest something like that that the mirror is at an angle to the axis of the laser beam, where in practice the mirror is semi-reflective to perform the deflection and reflection as claimed. Applicant should amend the claim using the appropriate terminology and phrasing from the original disclosure, as much as possible.
Claims 2–6 are rejected due to dependency upon a rejected claim.
Comment: Claim 7 recites “the first and last filtering pattern,” which lacks antecedent basis. However, given the alignment and distances discussed earlier in the claim, as well as the laser, as well as general clarification given by the disclosure, the meaning of this limitation is overwhelmingly clear.
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 1–6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiya (JP H01-243062 A) in view of Dayrell (US Pub. 2017/0338058).
Claim 1: Kamiya discloses a filtering pattern (“photomask”) for the collimation (understood as intended use) of a laser beam (“laser beam”), comprising:
a transparent layer (the disclosure mentions “glass, quartz, etc.” for prior art ;
a sealant layer comprising a pattern (“metal membrane (2),” “a metal membrane which intercepts incidence light in a predetermined field”);
wherein the sealant layer is formed on a surface of the glass layer and the sealant layer is designed to absorb the laser beam (ibid.; see figs. 1 and 2); and
the pattern formed by the mask is on a 1 to 1 scale to the cuts on the substrate (a laser is capable of employing the filtering pattern to produce cuts at a 1 to 1 scale).
Kamiya does not explicitly disclose that its transparent layer is made of glass. Instead, in discussing its structure, it only states that the layer is made of a “material with a small thermal expansion coefficient which transmissivity is high and has little air bubbles and Striae, for example, quartz etc.”
However, the background section of the disclosure mentions that similar prior art structures are made from “glass, quartz, etc.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the transparent layer of Kamiya out of glass since the reference itself clearly suggests that it’s a suitable material (MPEP § 2144.07).
Kamiya does not explicitly disclose that the sealant layer is formed by a plurality of gaps, the gaps designed to allow the laser beam to pass through the sealant layer and produce cuts on a substrate.
However, as Kamiya is directed to a mask, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the design of the mask pattern could, and usually would, be more complex than that shown in figs. 1–3 of the reference, including a plurality of gaps.
Furthermore, a plurality of gaps in a mask is generally known in the art, as for example shown in Dayrell (see mask pattern 47 (shown in fig. 5) forming a plurality of gaps like that shown in fig. 7).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the mask of Kamiya to have a plurality of gaps, like those taught by Dayrell, to use the mask to form a desired structure in conjunction with the laser.
Claim 2: Kamiya discloses a mirror layer (evident from “the light reflected by the dielectric multilayer (4)”) comprising a pattern identical to the pattern in the sealant layer (evident from figs. 1 and 2) and perfectly aligned with the pattern in the sealant layer (ibid.);
wherein the mirror layer is formed on a surface of the glass layer (ibid.) and the mirror layer is designed to reflect the laser beam (illustrated in figs. 1 and 2 with the arrows);
wherein the mirror layer is formed between the sealant layer and the glass layer in such a way that the mirror layer is isolated from the atmosphere and the sealant layer is designed to absorb the laser beam (see 1, 2, and 4 in figs. 1 and 2).
Claim 3: Kamiya does not disclose that
the pattern formed by the plurality of gaps creates a first terminal and a second terminal; wherein the first terminal and the second terminal each contain a plurality of alternate fringes, each fringe connected to a terminal in an alternate pattern; wherein the first terminal pattern and second terminal pattern are physically separated from each other by a continuous gap between the first terminal pattern and the second terminal pattern, the gap configured to allow the laser beam to pass through and produce cuts on the substrate.
However, Dayrell discloses a similar apparatus where a pattern formed by a plurality of gaps (on 47) creates a first terminal (60a) and a second terminal (60b);
wherein the first terminal and the second terminal each contain a plurality of alternate fringes (65), each fringe connected to a terminal in an alternate pattern (see, e.g., fig. 15);
wherein the first terminal pattern and second terminal pattern are physically separated from each other by a continuous gap between the first terminal pattern and the second terminal pattern (ibid.), the gap configured to allow the laser beam to pass through and produce cuts on the substrate (a laser beam would be able to pass through the gap).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the mask of Kamiya to work in conjunction with its laser to have the pattern that would form the first and second terminals taught by Dayrell.
Comment: The claimed terminals are not at all positively recited in the claim, and are only an intended outcome of the functionality of the structure; although even with that, the resultant terminals would largely be the result of the laser, which is also not positively recited. As a result, these aspects of the claim are given less patentable weight.
Claim 4: Modified with the same rationale as per claim 3 above, Dayrell discloses a pattern (see fig. 23) formed by the plurality of gaps creates a first terminal (60a) and a second terminal (60b) and isolated fringes (81a, 81b);
wherein the first terminal and the second terminal each contain a plurality of alternate fringes (79a, 79b), each fringe connected to a terminal in an alternate pattern (see fig. 23) and the plurality of isolated fringes are not connected to any terminal (ibid.);
wherein one or more isolated fringes are placed between each fringe connected to the first terminal pattern and each fringe connected to the second terminal pattern, in such a way that a continuous gap prevents physical contact among the isolated fringes or the first terminal pattern and the second terminal pattern (ibid.), the gap configured to allow the laser beam to pass through and produce cuts on the substrate (this would result from the modification with Kamiya).
Claim 5: Modified as per claim 3 above, Dayrell discloses that the width of the gap between the first terminal pattern and the second terminal pattern is fifty microns or less (claim 2, “less than five microns”).
Claim 6: Modified as per claim 3 above, Dayrell discloses that the width of the gap between the isolated fringes, the fringes connected to the first terminal pattern and the fringes connected to the second terminal pattern is fifty microns or less (claim 2, “less than five microns”; see also ¶ 81, “gaps of 1 micron”).
Allowable Subject Matter
All of claims 7–18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections, as well as the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Salama (US Pub. 2007/0000884) is an example of a reference showing a laser with two masks, but there would be no reason to further modify Kamiya and Dayrell with this feature without the benefit of impermissible hindsight.
The “filtering patterns” in claims 7 and 12 should be understood as their own elements, each forming a complete filtering pattern. Given Applicant’s disclosure, it would not be reasonable to find that this limitation would read on different portions of only one filtering pattern.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Omata et al. (US Pub. 2008/0057718) teaches using a reflective layer on a mask to reduce absorption (¶ 108).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM 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, Edward F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761