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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-16 are under consideration
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Angelopoulos (US5310625A, filed 1994).
Regarding claims 1-10, 12, and 15,
Angelopoulos teaches a process for generating a negative tone image of polyimide on a substrate comprising of coating a film comprising polyamic ester (precursor of a cyclization resin) and a photoinitiator, imagewise exposing the film, developing the image, contacting (treating, rinsing) said film with a base which is an amine, and heating said film to imidize said polyamic ester [claims 1-2], reading on instant claims 2-3, 5, 9, and 12.
Angelopoulos teaches their polyamic ester may have the following structure [col 2 lines 41-45], where R and R' are each independently selected from alkyl or aryl (monovalent organic groups) [col 2 lines 54-65], Z is alkyl or aryl (divalent organic groups) [col2 lines 66-67], and Q is a tetravalent organic radical selected from cycloalkyl, aromatic and aromatic heterocyclic (tetravalent organic group) [col 3 lines 55-57], reading on instant claim 8.
PNG
media_image1.png
115
188
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Angelopoulos teaches an example composition comprising of the polyamic acid ester, a photoinitiator, and 2-ethyl 2-(hydroxymethyl)1,3-propane diol triacrylate (trifunctional polymerizable compound) [col 8 lines 59-69], reading on instant claim 1.
Angelopoulos teaches their treatment with a base using diethylamine (organic base, secondary amine) [col 9 lines 7-8], reading on instant claims 6-7.
Angelopoulos teaches their developer may be N-methylpyrrolidinone, dimethyl formamide, or a mixture thereof (organic solvents) [col 6 lines 57-65]. Angelopoulos also teaches developing using 10 parts NMP to 90 parts diglme (organic solvents) [col 9 lines 4-5], reading on instant claim 4.
Angelopoulos teaches a post base treatment bake performed at 140 °C [col 9 lines 28-32], reading on instant claim 10.
Angelopoulos teaches their substrate may be silicon in forming integrated circuit packaging structures in integrated circuit chips (semiconductor devices) [col 8 lines 14-20], reading on instant claim 15.
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.
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 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angelopoulos (US5310625A, filed 1994) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 13-14 and 16,
Angelopoulos teaches the above limitations set forth, reading on instant claim 16.
Angelopoulos is silent to repeating their process for generating a negative tone image of polyimide a plurality of times, as well as forming a metal layer between two cycles of performing their process for generating a negative tone image of polyimide.
However, Angelopoulos teaches a preferred embodiment of their invention relates to an integrated circuit packaging structure comprising of a plurality of alternating electrically insulating and conducting layers positioned on the substrate wherein at least one (implying there may be a plurality) of the conducting layers comprises a negative tone imaged polyimide film made by the process of the present invention [col 8 lines 1-13]. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that there may be a plurality of layers of their film formed by their process for generating a negative tone image of polyimide, reading on instant claim 13. Additionally, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the plurality of conducting layers may include forming at least one metal layer, as a well-known conductive material in the art, reading on instant claim 14.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angelopoulos (US5310625A, filed 1994) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanaka (US 20040238486 A1, published 2004).
Regarding claim 11,
Angelopoulos teaches the above limitations set forth.
Angelopoulos fails to explicitly teach supplying their developer using a shower.
Tanaka, analogous art, teaches development of a photoresist using a method such shower development, followed by a rinse treatment step using a liquid which may be an organic amine such as triethylamine [0026].
As both Angelopoulos and Tanaka teaches similar development and rinsing processing steps, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that using the shower development of Tanaka as the development step of Angelopoulos would result in a comparable and expected developed film, reading on instant claim 11.
That is, the substitution of the shower development of Tanaka for the development step of Angelopoulos, absent unexpected results, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application with the predictable result of forming a developed film. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (See MPEP § 2143, B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2261. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5:30 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, Mark Huff can be reached at (571) 272-1385. 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.
/A.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1737 /JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734