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
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “coincide” should be –coincides--. 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 5-9 and 11-17 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 “far” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “far” 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. Examiner suggests that the limitation “far” be deleted in order to overcome this rejection.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the coding patterns" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that amending the limitation to delete “the” to just recite –coding patterns—would overcome this rejection.
The remaining claims are rejected since they depend from claims 5 and/or 6 without clarifying the issues above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 6-9 and 11-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, 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. Applicant’s arguments of 6/26/26 are persuasive.
In particular, Examiner notes that Tsao [the cited closest prior art] fails to disclose that the transparent polymer layer 1248 as a plurality of layers on the sacrificial layer 1218. [Examiner notes that transparent polymer layer 1248 is disclosed as an integral layer coated over sacrificial layer 1218 (see Fig. 12B), rather than as a plurality of layers spaced from each other and therefore layer 1248 cannot be considered equivalent to the claimed plurality of first coating layers. Also, while layers 1224 are shown as a plurality of layers spaced from each other (see para. 0185 and see Fig. 12C), layers 1224 cannot be considered equivalent to the claimed plurality of first coating layers since they do not meet the claimed limitations of having a magnetic material covering a first top surface and a first side surface (connected to the first top surface) of the first coating layer (as recited in independent claim 5) since magnetic layer 1232 of Tsao does not cover the top surface and side surface of layers 1224 (see Figure12D of Tsao). See also in general paras. 0186-0187 and Figs. 12A-12E.] Therefore Tsao does not disclose features that meet the limitations of “forming a plurality of first coating layers which are spaced from each other on the sacrificial layer, wherein each of the plurality of first coating layers comprises a first top surface away from the semiconductor substrate and a first side surface connected to the first top surface” as recited in independent claim 5.
Tsao also fails to disclose magnetic layer (1232) that covers the side surface of transparent polymer layer (1228), but rather magnetic layer (1232) is disclosed as being on top of transparent polymer layer (1228) [Fig. 12C]. Therefore Tsao fails to disclose “forming a magnetic material on the sacrificial layer, wherein the magnetic material covers the first top surface and the first side surface of each of the first coating layers”.
Also, even though Tsao discloses that transparent polymer 1248 is provided over the transparent polymer layer 1228 and magnetic layer 1242, Tsao fails to disclose that transparent polymer layer 1248 covers the side surface of the transparent polymer layer 1228 [see Fig 12D of Tsao], and therefore transparent polymer layer 1248 cannot be considered equivalent to the claimed second coating layers of claim 5, which recites “forming a plurality of second coating layers which are spaced from each other on the semiconductor substrate, wherein each of the plurality of second coating layers comprises a top wall and a periphery, each periphery covers the second side surface of a respective one of the magnetic layer and the first side surface of a respective one of the plurality of first coating layers”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and arguments have overcome the prior art cited (see discussion above under “Allowable Subject Matter”.) However, rejections under 35 USC 112(b) remain (see above). Examiner notes that overcoming these rejections in an After-Final would be considered.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP 2009016767. This reference teaches a method of forming magnetic nanoparticles, the method comprising a step of forming a first coating layer that covers the quantum dots, and a step of forming a hole in a portion of the surface of the first coating layer that is above the quantum dots. Also disclosed is forming a second coating layer on the surface of the first coating layer excluding the hole, and forming a magnetic material layer so as to cover the second coating layer and the hole. The magnetic material layer may be annealed to form magnetic nanoparticles in the hole, and the magnetic material other than the hole may be removed together with the second coating layer. See para. 14 in the English translation provided. (However, the limitations of Applicant’s claim 5 (discussed) above, are not taught by this reference.)
FR 2958791. This references teaches a method of manufacturing magnetic particles, comprising: depositing on a substrate a layer of a first sacrificial material; depositing a layer of a second sacrificial material different from said first sacrificial material; structuring the second sacrificial material layer by forming holes having the shape of the magnetic particles that one seeks to manufacture; depositing at least one material for manufacturing said particles covering the second material layer and at least partially filling said holes; selective removal of said second sacrificial material with respect to said first sacrificial material so that particles formed by said manufacturing material filling the holes and arranged on said layer of said first sacrificial material are obtained; and elimination of said first sacrificial material so that said particles are released. See abstract. (However, the limitations of Applicant’s claim 5 (discussed) above, are not taught by this reference.)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ann Montgomery whose telephone number is (571)272-0894. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9-5:30 PM PST.
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, Greg Emch can be reached at 571-272-8149. 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.
/Ann Montgomery/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1678
Prosecution Insights