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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/06/2023The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 10/05/2025 is acknowledged.
Additionally, Applicant's election with traverse of Species 7 (fig.10) in the reply filed on 10/05/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “no undue search burden exists, and furthermore, that the asserted Species are not mutually exclusive”. This is found persuasive so the Species restriction is withdrawn. Claims 1-19 are examined in this office action.
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 8 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Claim 8 recites the term “a specified abundance” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a specified abundance” 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 examination purposes, the term “a specified abundance” can have any value.
Similarly, claims 12-13 recites the same term “a specified abundance” so that claim 12 is rejected by the same reason as discussed in claim 8 above.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 9-10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US5518956A) in view of Yoshida (US20220266379A1, effectively filing date 11/13/2019)
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses
A method (See title), comprising:
depositing a conductive layer (116,see fig.1A and col.3, lines 26-28: “second non-insulative layer 116 typically comprises a substantially transparent conductive oxide such as indium tin oxide (ITO) or the like”) on a surface of a dielectric layer (dielectric material 114, see fig.1A and col.3, lines 16-17); and
conductively isolating a first region (119a, see fig.1A) from a second region of the conductive layer (remaining portion of 116 which is not ablated by the laser, see fig.1A) using ablative optical energy (laser, see figs.2A-C and col.3, lines 56-65: “wafer assembly 100 is repaired in a process comprising the step of ablating a portion of common electrode layer 116 to electrically isolate situs 119a of the short circuit in common electrode layer 116 without breaking the electrical integrity of address line 113a”), including:
applying ablative optical energy (laser, see col.3, lines 56-65) to the conductive layer (116,see fig.1A).
However, Liu does not explicitly disclose
monitoring a spectrum of an ablative plume generated by applying the ablative optical energy; and
controlling the ablative optical energy in response to a characteristic of the spectrum of the ablative plume.
Yoshida discloses a laser processing device, comprising:
monitoring a spectrum of an ablative plume (see para.0235:” Image sensor 38 captures the plume produced during the laser processing in real time to obtain the emission light spectrum of the plume” and para.0044: “The laser processing performed by laser processing device 1 is, for example, … cutting, or drilling or the like”) generated by applying the ablative optical energy (laser, see fig.19 and para.0234: “ the plume (laser plume) produced during laser processing is analyzed as signal light”); and
controlling the ablative optical energy (output power of the laser beam) in response to a characteristic of the spectrum of the ablative plume (“emission light spectrum of the plume”, see para.0235 and para.0236: “by measuring the plume, it is possible to select the optimal wavelength for and control the output power of the laser beam for processing, thus improving the processing quality of workpieces 2A and 2B”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method of Liu to incorporate the steps of “monitoring a spectrum of an ablative plume generated by applying the ablative optical energy; and
controlling the ablative optical energy in response to a characteristic of the spectrum of the ablative plume” as taught by Yoshida. Doing so allows to “ adjust the processing conditions for the workpiece while performing the laser processing since the material of the workpiece can be analyzed while performing the laser processing. Accordingly, this makes it possible to realize a laser processing device that can achieve both high processing quality and high throughput.” (See para.0252 of Yoshida).
Regarding claim 4, Liu further discloses depositing the dielectric layer (114, see fig.1A) on a surface of a substrate (surface of 105, see fig.1A).
Regarding claim 7, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth.
Liu does not expressly disclose the characteristic of the spectrum includes a feature corresponding to ablation of a constituent of the conductive layer.
Yoshida further discloses the characteristic of the spectrum includes a feature (reflection spectrum, see para.0178) corresponding to ablation of a constituent (copper, see para.0179: “the reflection spectrum illustrated in FIG. 11 is closest to the reflection spectrum for copper among the reflection spectrums illustrated in FIG. 12” and para.0044: “. The laser processing performed by laser processing device 1 is, for example, …, cutting, or drilling or the like”) of the conductive layer (2, see para.0179)”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the characteristic of the spectrum of Liu, in view of Yoshida, to utilize “the characteristic of the spectrum includes a feature corresponding to ablation of a constituent of the conductive layer” as taught by Yoshida. Doing so allows to “adjust the processing conditions for the workpiece while performing the laser processing since the material of the workpiece can be analyzed while performing the laser processing. Accordingly, this makes it possible to realize a laser processing device that can achieve both high processing quality and high throughput.” (See para.0252 of Yoshida).
Regarding claim 9, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth.
Liu does not expressly disclose the constituent comprises a metallic species, and wherein the characteristic of the spectrum includes a peak corresponding to the metallic species.
Yoshida further discloses the constituent comprises a metallic species (copper, see para.0179), and wherein the characteristic of the spectrum includes a peak (see fig.11) corresponding to the metallic species (see fig.12 and para.0179: “since the reflection spectrum illustrated in FIG. 11 is closest to the reflection spectrum for copper among the reflection spectrums illustrated in FIG. 12 (i.e., since the reflection spectrum in FIG. 11 closely matches the reflection spectrum for copper in FIG. 12), the material at the coordinates of the processing position of workpiece 2 can be determined to be copper” ).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the constituent of the conductive layer of Liu, in view of Yoshida, to comprise “a metallic species, and wherein the characteristic of the spectrum includes a peak corresponding to the metallic species” as taught by Yoshida. Doing so allows to “adjust the processing conditions for the workpiece while performing the laser processing since the material of the workpiece can be analyzed while performing the laser processing. Accordingly, this makes it possible to realize a laser processing device that can achieve both high processing quality and high throughput.” (See para.0252 of Yoshida).
Regarding claim 10, Liu in view of Yoshida further discloses the constituent comprises copper or silver (copper, see para.0179 of Yashida).
Regarding claim 14, Liu in view of Yoshida further discloses the spectrum comprises an emission spectrum (see para.0236 of Yoshida: “ emission light spectrum of the plume”).
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Yoshida as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Giesbers (US20180079132A1)
Regarding claim 2, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth, except depositing the conductive layer comprises dispensing or printing a conductive species.
Giesbers discloses a method for printing a 3D printed object, comprising:
depositing the conductive layer (1120, see fig.2) comprises dispensing or printing a conductive species (printing a conductive species, see para.0070: “ the first type of printed material 1120 and the second type of printed material 2120 may substantially be identical, …, but with the former having these electrically conductive species …”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the step of depositing the conductive layer of Liu, as modified by Yoshida, to comprise dispensing or printing a conductive species as taught by Giesbers. Doing so provides greater design flexibility, reduced material waste, and lower production costs.
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Yoshida and Giesbers as applied to claim 2 and further in view of Nishimura (US 20180257680 A1)
Regarding claim 3, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth, except the conductive layer comprises at least one of a dried conductive ink or a cured conductive ink.
Nishimura discloses a method of producing an electrode-equipped plate spring of a railcar bogie, comprising:
the conductive layer (X, see fig.5C) comprises at least one of a dried conductive ink or a cured conductive ink (141-143, see fig.5B and para.0036: “the electrically conductive inks 141, 142, and 143 are cured to form the electrode element pairs 41 to 43 (electrode pair E.sub.1F)”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the conductive layer of Liu, as modified by Yoshida and Giesbers, to comprise the “cured conductive ink” as taught by Nishimura. Using cured conductive ink for the conductive layer offers benefits like low cost, flexibility, and easy integration into manufacturing.
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Yoshida as applied to claim 4 and further in view of De Samber (US 20190232552 A1)
Regarding claim 5, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth, except depositing the dielectric layer comprises dispensing or printing a dielectric material.
De Samber discloses a 3D printing method and product, comprising:
depositing the dielectric layer (44, see fig.3 and para.0076) comprises printing a dielectric material (see para.0076: “ the printing provides a dielectric layer 44”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the step of depositing the dielectric layer of Liu, as modified by Yoshida above, to comprise “printing a dielectric material” as taught by De Samber. Doing so allows to create complex 3D structures, reduce costs, enable customization on flexible surfaces.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Yoshida, Kuster as applied to claim 5 and further in view of Wynne (US 20220289615 A1)
Regarding claim 6, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth, except the substrate is non-planar.
Wynne discloses a method of manufacturing a workpiece, comprising:
the substrate (260, see fig.19) is non-planar (see para.0099: “ the opposite surface 260 of the bottom substrate 256, can each be planar or non-planar.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the substrate of Liu in view of Yoshida, Kuster to be “non-planar” as taught by Wynne, for the purpose of improving design freedom for specialized applications, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04 §IV).
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Yoshida as applied to claim 7 and further in view of Day (US 20160252398 A1)
Regarding claim 8, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth, except controlling the ablative optical energy comprises continuing applying ablative optical energy when the characteristic of the spectrum indicates a presence of the constituent of the conductive layer above a specified abundance.
Day discloses A LIBS analyzer and method includes a laser configured to produce a plasma on a sample at a focal point on the sample and a spectrometer responsive to radiation emitted from the plasma and configured to produce an output spectrum, comprising:
controlling the ablative optical energy (laser, see para.0039) comprises continuing applying ablative optical energy (laser, see para.0039) when the characteristic of the spectrum indicates a presence of the constituent of the conductive layer (the constituent of the conductive layer 116 of Liu) above a specified abundance (A1, see para.0039: “if a signal greater than A1 is present in the spectrum in wavelength range λ1, the controller subsystem then automatically pulses the laser again”).
Thus, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method of Liu in view of Yoshida to incorporate the step of “controlling the ablative optical energy comprises continuing applying ablative optical energy when the characteristic of the spectrum indicates a presence of the constituent of the conductive layer above a specified abundance” as taught by Day. Doing so prevents further laser shots if the wafer assembly is not detected (see para.006 of Day).
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Yoshida as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Kornrumpf (US 5410179 A)
Regarding claim 11, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth, except the characteristic of the spectrum includes a feature corresponding to ablation of a constituent of the dielectric layer.
Kornrumpf discloses the field of microwave chip components, comprising:
The characteristic of the spectrum includes a feature corresponding to ablation of a constituent of the dielectric layer (See col.8, lines 24-28: The selective removal of the dielectric layer 30 is preferably done by laser ablation using a laser which emits in the ultraviolet portion of the electromagnetic spectrum at a frequency which is effective for ablating the particular dielectric material used”).
Thus, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the characteristic of the spectrum of Liu in view of Yoshida to include “a feature corresponding to ablation of a constituent of the dielectric layer” as taught by Kornrumpf. Doing so allows to ablate the dielectric material effectively.
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Yoshida, Kornrumpf as applied to claim 11 and further in view of Suzuki (JP 2003243752 A)
Regarding claim 12, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth, except controlling the ablative optical energy comprises reducing or terminating the application of ablative optical energy to a specified region when the characteristic of the spectrum indicates a presence of the constituent of the dielectric layer above a specified abundance.
Suzuki discloses a gas laser device, comprising:
controlling the ablative optical energy (laser, see para.0065) comprises reducing the application of ablative optical energy ( laser, see para.0065, reducing the application of the laser by controlling the valves V1-V3) to a specified region (irradiated region) when the characteristic of the spectrum indicates a presence of the constituent of the dielectric layer (the spectrum indicates a presence of the constituent of the dielectric layer of Liu) above a specified abundance (see para.0065: “ The controller 50 compares the calculation result of the data calculation unit 40, that is, the index value of the true spectrum waveform g (λ) (here, 95% purity E95) with a preset threshold value. When the 95% purity E95 exceeds the threshold value, the valve V1 is adjusted and the buffer gas is supplied into the chamber 10 to reduce the F2 concentration of the laser gas.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the step of controlling the ablative optical energy of Liu in view of Yoshida, Kornrumpf to comprise “reducing or terminating the application of ablative optical energy to a specified region when the characteristic of the spectrum indicates a presence of the constituent of the dielectric layer above a specified abundance” as taught by Suzuki. Doing so prevents defective exposure of the wafer assembly easily and effectively (See para.008 of Suzuki) .
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Yoshida, Kornrumpf as applied to claim 11 and further in view of Day (US 20160252398 A1)
Regarding claim 13, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth, except the controlling the ablative optical energy comprises reducing or terminating the application of ablative optical energy to a specified region when the characteristic of the spectrum indicates at least one of(1) a presence of the constituent of the dielectric layer above a specified abundance or (2) the constituent of the conductive layer below a specified abundance.
Day discloses A LIBS analyzer and method includes a laser configured to produce a plasma on a sample at a focal point on the sample and a spectrometer responsive to radiation emitted from the plasma and configured to produce an output spectrum, comprising:
the controlling the ablative optical energy (laser, see para.0039) comprises reducing or terminating the application of ablative optical energy (stopping the application of the laser, see para.0039) to a specified region (irradiated region by the laser, see para.0039) when the characteristic of the spectrum indicates the constituent of the conductive layer (the constituent of the conductive layer 116 of Liu) below a specified abundance (See para.0039: “or the laser stops firing, the spectrum will not have a signal greater than A1 in the wavelength range λ1 and the test will be automatically stopped.”)
Thus, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the step of controlling the ablative optical energy of Liu in view of Yoshida, Kornrumpf to comprise “reducing or terminating the application of ablative optical energy to a specified region when the characteristic of the spectrum indicates a presence of the constituent of the dielectric layer above a specified abundance” as taught by Day. Doing so prevents further laser shots if the wafer assembly is not detected (see para.006 of Day).
Claims 15 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US5518956A) in view of Seong (US 20070138154 A1) and further in view of Yoshida (US20220266379A1)
Regarding claim 15, Liu discloses
A method (See title), comprising:
depositing a first conductive layer (112,see fig.1A and col.3, lines 6-11: “first non-insulative layer 112 … As used herein, "non-insulative' refers to a component layer that comprises conductive or semiconductive material”);
depositing a dielectric layer (dielectric material 114, see fig.1A and col.3, lines 16-17) on a surface of the first conductive layer (112,see fig.1A);
forming apertures or holes in the dielectric layer (ablated portion of the dielectric layer 114, see col.4, lines 14-19) using ablative optical energy (see col.4, lines 14-19:“the penetration of the laser beam through common electrode 116 and dielectric layer 114, and resulting ablation of the material in which the energy of the beam is absorbed, is controlled such that only a selected portion of the dielectric layer is ablated”);
depositing a second conductive layer (116, see fig.1A and col.3, lines 26-28: “second non-insulative layer 116 typically comprises a substantially transparent conductive oxide such as indium tin oxide (ITO) or the like”) on a surface of the dielectric layer (114) opposite the first conductive layer (112, see fig.1A), and
conductively isolating a first region (119a, see fig.1A) from a second region of the second conductive layer (remaining portion of 116 which is not ablated by the laser, see fig.1A) using ablative optical energy (laser, see figs.2A-C and col.3, lines 56-65: wafer assembly 100 is repaired in a process comprising the step of ablating a portion of common electrode layer 116 to electrically isolate situs 119a of the short circuit in common electrode layer 116 without breaking the electrical integrity of address line 113a. As used herein, the term "ablate", "ablation", and the like refer to the process by which a beam of energy, such as a laser beam, is directed onto wafer assembly 100 to cause some portion of the material disposed thereon to be removed”), including:
applying ablative optical energy (laser, see col.3, lines 56-65) to the second conductive layer (116,see fig.1A).
However, Liu does not explicitly disclose
depositing the second conductive layer including filling at least some of the apertures or holes in the dielectric layer with conductive material;
monitoring a spectrum of an ablative plume generated by applying the ablative optical energy; and
controlling the ablative optical energy in response to a characteristic of the spectrum of the ablative plume.
Seong discloses a method of forming a via hole using a laser beam, comprising:
depositing the second conductive layer ( upper metal layer 161, see figs.4A-C and para.0005) including filling at least some of the apertures or holes in the dielectric layer (“a hole (hereinafter a via hole) is formed in the dielectric layer, see para.0005) with conductive material (See para.0005: “To electrically connect the upper metal layer to the lower metal layer, a hole (hereinafter a via hole) is formed in the upper metal layer and the dielectric layer and filled with a conductive metal”).
Thus, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the step of depositing the second conductive layer of Liu to include “filling at least some of the apertures or holes in the dielectric layer with conductive material” as taught by Seong. Doing so allows to electrically connect the first and second conductive layers effectively so that repair of electronic arrays having short circuits resulting from vertical defects in dielectric layers that is relatively quick and simple to accomplish (see para.0005 of Seong and FiG.1A-1B of Liu).
Liu in view of Seong discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except
monitoring a spectrum of an ablative plume generated by applying the ablative optical energy; and
controlling the ablative optical energy in response to a characteristic of the spectrum of the ablative plume.
Yoshida discloses a laser processing device, comprising:
monitoring a spectrum of an ablative plume (see para.0235:” Image sensor 38 captures the plume produced during the laser processing in real time to obtain the emission light spectrum of the plume” and para.0044: “The laser processing performed by laser processing device 1 is, for example, … cutting, or drilling or the like”) generated by applying the ablative optical energy (laser, see fig.19 and para.0234: “ the plume (laser plume) produced during laser processing is analyzed as signal light”); and
controlling the ablative optical energy (output power of the laser beam) in response to a characteristic of the spectrum of the ablative plume (“emission light spectrum of the plume”, see para.0235 and para.0236: “by measuring the plume, it is possible to select the optimal wavelength for and control the output power of the laser beam for processing, thus improving the processing quality of workpieces 2A and 2B”).
Thus, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method of Liu in view of Seong to incorporate the steps of “monitoring a spectrum of an ablative plume generated by applying the ablative optical energy; and controlling the ablative optical energy in response to a characteristic of the spectrum of the ablative plume” as taught by Yoshida. Doing so allows to “ adjust the processing conditions for the workpiece while performing the laser processing since the material of the workpiece can be analyzed while performing the laser processing. Accordingly, this makes it possible to realize a laser processing device that can achieve both high processing quality and high throughput” (See para.0252 of Yoshida).
Regarding claim 17, Liu further discloses removing a portion of the dielectric layer (“see col.4, lines 14-19:“the penetration of the laser beam through common electrode 116 and dielectric layer 114, and resulting ablation of the material in which the energy of the beam is absorbed, is controlled such that only a selected portion of the dielectric layer is ablated”) to establish a specified dielectric layer profile or thickness (result of removing a portion of the dielectric layer 114, see col.4, lines 14-19, thickness of the ablated dielectric layer 114) using ablative optical energy (laser, see col.4, lines 14-19)
Regarding claim 18, Liu in view of Yoshida further discloses wherein the spectrum comprises an emission spectrum (see para.0236 of Ypshida: “ emission light spectrum of the plume”) and
the ablative optical energy is provided using a laser (See abstract of Liu),
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Seong, Yoshida as applied to claim 15, and further in view of Giesbers (US20180079132A1)
Regarding claim 16, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth, except at least one of the first conductive layer, the second conductive layer, or the dielectric layer are dispensed or printed in liquid or paste form.
Giesbers discloses a method for printing a 3D printed object, comprising:
the first conductive layer (electrically conductive (printed) material 1120, see fig.2) is dispensed or printed in liquid or paste form (See para.0017: “the printable material may comprise liquid material that is curable (by light, such as laser radiation)…”).
Thus, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the first conductive layer of Liu in view of Seong, Yoshida to be printed in liquid form as taught by Giesbers. Doing so provides incredible flexibility, customization, and complex 3D structures while also speeding up design, reducing waste, and creating seamless integration on surfaces.
Claim 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Seong, Yoshida as applied to claim 15, and further in view of (Wynne US 20220289615 A1)
Regarding claim 19, Liu further discloses the first conductive layer (112, see fig.1A) follows a contour of a substrate (105, see fig.1A), except a non-planar substrate.
Wynne discloses a method of manufacturing a workpiece, comprising:
the substrate (260, see fig.19) is non-planar (see para.0099: “ the opposite surface 260 of the bottom substrate 256, can each be planar or non-planar.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the substrate of Liu in view of Seong, Yoshida to be “non-planar” as taught by Wynne, for the purpose of improving design freedom for specialized applications, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04 §IV).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 4894115 A discloses a method of producing via holes in polymer dielectrics scans the polymer dielectric surface repeatedly with a high energy continuous wave laser in a pattern to create holes of controlled size, shape and depth.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached on (571) 272-9059. 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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761