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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on December 29, 2025, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
Claims 1-5, 14, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yeh et al (US 2015/0345042 A1).
Yeh discloses a preparation method for a sensing device (manufacturing microstructures of metal lines for touch panels [0007], Fig. 7; the preamble is treated as a statement of intended use and given little patentable weight), comprising:
forming a first auxiliary patterning layer 13 having a groove 14 on a surface of a transparent substrate 11 (Fig. 1C, [0021], [0023]); and
forming a mesh structure 15 (Fig. 1D, Fig. 7) in the groove of the first auxiliary pattern layer through an electroplating process [0024],
wherein a wire width of the mesh structure is substantially equivalent to the width of the trench [0025], and the width of the trench is in the range between 1 μm and 20 μm, preferably in the range between 1 μm and 5 μm, more preferably smaller than 3 μm [0023], and a thickness of the mesh structure is between 0.1 μm and 20 micron, preferably in the range between 0.1 μm and 2 μm [0024].
These ranges overlap with the cited width and thickness. Prior art which teaches a range overlapping, approaching or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity. MPEP 2131.03. The (i) overlapping ranges, (ii) Yeh and the instant invention both use the metal microstructure for the same purpose of a metal line, and (iii) lack of criticality of the dimensions, together show that the full range is taught with sufficient specificity.
As to claim 2, Yeh meets the limitation of claim 2. Claims 1 and 2 do not require etching because of the term “or” at claim 1, line 5.
As to claim 3, Yeh discloses coating a photoresist material, exposing and developing as cited [0023], and
wherein after forming the conductive layer (the etching is optional, as explained with respect to claim 2), the method further comprises removing the first auxiliary patterning layer ([0025], Fig. 1E).
As to claim 4, Yeh discloses forming a seed layer 12 on the surface of the transparent substrate through a deposition process as cited ([0022], Fig. 1B); after the first auxiliary patterning layer is formed, the groove of the first auxiliary patterning layer exposes a surface of the seed layer (as depicted in Fig. 1C, [0024]); and
wherein after removing the first auxiliary patterning layer (the etching is optional, as explained with respect to claim 2), the method further comprises etching the seed layer to remove the seed layer not covered by the conductive layer ([0025], Fig. 1E).
As to claim 5, Yeh discloses that the seed layer may comprise a dual layer of Ti/Au metal film [0022]. The instant invention also uses titanium as an adhesion layer (page 18, step (1-3)] The titanium layer serves as an adhesion layer as cited, and thus Yeh discloses the deposition and etching of the adhesion layer as explained with respect to claim 4.
As to claim 14, Yeh discloses that the transparent substrate comprises a valid region (visible touch zone, [0039], Fig. 7) and an invalid region surrounding the valid region (non-touch zone of the touch panel 1, [0039]); and
the mesh structure 38 is located in the valid region, and the invalid region is provided with an invalid mesh 39; and a wire width of the invalid mesh (5-20 μm [0039]) is greater than or equal to a wire width of the mesh structure of the valid region (1-5 μm [0039]).
As to claim 16, see Figure 7 which depicts a mesh structure in the antenna region (center mesh region), but a region outside the antenna region that does not have a mesh pattern, which encompasses a visual compensation region with a different mesh pattern, as broadly interpreted.
As to claim 18, see the rejection of claim 1. Yeh discloses a thickness of the mesh structure is between 0.1 μm and 20 micron, preferably in the range between 0.1 μm and 2 μm [0024].
These ranges encompass or touch the claimed range of thickness. Prior art which teaches a range overlapping, approaching or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity. MPEP 2131.03. The (i) range is close to the cited range and also encompassed within the broad range, (ii) Yeh and the instant invention both use the metal microstructure for the same purpose of a metal line, and (iii) lack of criticality of the dimensions, together show that the full range is taught with sufficient specificity.
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.
Claims 6-8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al (US 2015/0345042 A1), as applied to claim 3, and further in view of Ma (US 2022/0344203 A1).
As to claim 6, Yeh fails to disclose forming a seed layer in the groove of the first auxiliary patterning layer. Ma teaches an electroplating process comprising forming a first auxiliary patterning layer 213 [0040] and forming a seed layer 216 on the surface of the first auxiliary patterning layer (Fig. 4, [0045]). The seed layer improves the electroplating efficiency and quality of the films formed by electroplating. [0045]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a seed layer in the groove in the method of Yeh because Ma teaches that it is a useful technique to improve electroplating efficiency and quality of the films formed by electroplating.
As to claim 7, Ma teaches to form a first electroplated layer 22 on the seed layer [0053], and then a second electroplated layer 23 [0055]. Ma teaches that this technique allows for films with smaller grain size and better grain size uniformity [0055]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a first and second electroplated layers as cited in the modified method of Yeh because Ma teaches that this is a known and useful technique for filling grooves, and such is expected to improve grain size and uniformity.
It would have been further obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove the second electroplated layer, the first electroplated layer, and the seed surface as cited in the modified method of Yeh because Yeh teaches that this is a desired structure in the preferred embodiment of the invention, and such is expected to be useful to form the mesh structure ready for sensing.
As to claim 8, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to conduct the steps as cited in the modified method of Yeh in order to optimize the steps to efficiently form the second electroplated layer where needed without the need for its extra removal steps.
As to claim 17, Yeh fails to disclose varying the wire width as cited. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the size as cited as an obvious matter of design choice according to the desired final product desired features.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-13 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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: the prior art fails to disclose or suggest a preparation method for a sensing device comprising:
before forming the first auxiliary patterning layer having the groove on the surface of the transparent substrate, sequentially forming a second auxiliary patterning thin film, a hard mask, and a patterned first photoresist layer on the surface of the transparent substrate;
etching the second auxiliary patterning thin film and the hard mask by using the patterned first photoresist layer to form a patterned second auxiliary patterning layer; and
wherein forming the first auxiliary patterning layer having the groove on the surface of the transparent substrate comprises: forming the first auxiliary patterning layer on a surface of the second auxiliary patterning layer away from the transparent substrate, wherein a surface of the first auxiliary patterning layer away from the transparent substrate is flush with the surface of the second auxiliary patterning layer away from the transparent substrate; and removing the second auxiliary patterning layer to form the groove of the first auxiliary patterning layer, wherein a width of the groove is substantially the same as the wire width of the mesh structure, as in the context of claim 9.
The closest prior art, Yeh et al, discloses a method with a first auxiliary patterning layer as described above in the rejection. However, Yeh fails to disclose or suggest to further complicate the process by forming a second auxiliary patterning thin film, a hard mask, and a patterned first photoresist layer on the surface of the transparent substrate, and then etching, and further wherein a surface of the first auxiliary patterning layer away from the transparent substrate is flush with the surface of the second auxiliary patterning layer away from the transparent substrate; and removing the second auxiliary patterning layer to form the groove of the first auxiliary patterning layer, wherein a width of the groove is substantially the same as the wire width of the mesh structure, as in the context of claim 9. The prior art also fails to teach these aspects of patterning, coating and etching to form an antenna or sensing device, and therefore there is no motivation to modify Yeh to arrive at the invention, as in the context of claim 9.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose or suggest a preparation method for a sensing device wherein the transparent substrate further comprises an energized region surrounding the invalid region, and the energized region is configured to provide an electroplating current in the electroplating process, as in the context of claim 15.
The closest prior art, Yeh et al, discloses to form a valid region and an invalid region. Yeh discloses that the invalid region comprises greater wire width size than in the valid region, as explained in the rejection above. However, Yeh fails to disclose or suggest an energized region surrounding the invalid region, and that the energized region is configured to provide an electroplating current in the electroplating process, as in the context of claim 15. The prior art also fails to disclose this technique of providing an energized region surrounding an invalid region as cited. Accordingly, there is no motivation to modify the method of Yeh to arrive at the invention, as in the context of claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO 2022/193099 A1 is cited to show a second electroplating process for forming a metal grid (Figures 11-13). WO 2021/174426 A1 is cited to show forming a metal grid (Fig.2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANITA K ALANKO whose telephone number is (571)270-0297. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5pm.
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.
/ANITA K ALANKO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713