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 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 3 and 9 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the antireflective layer" in line 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. An antireflective treatment does not necessarily deposit a layer. This interpretation is also unclear because claim 1 requires an antireflective treatment on the upper surface of the substrate while also requiring the mold to be delimited by the upper surface of the substrate. If there is an antireflective coating formed on the upper surface of the substrate unless there is an omitted step of removing the antireflective treatment/layer. This removal step is not expressly required until claim 6.
Also in line 4, the language “performed” should be --is performed--.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the interface" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11-13, 15-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CUSIN et al. (US 2017/0130353) in view of RABAROT et al. (US 2007/0003839).
Regarding claim 1,
CUSIN teaches a method of making a part for a timepiece abstract. The method includes providing a substrate, forming a mold on the substrate that can be filled to form the component [0005]-[0009]. The formation of the mold uses a photolithography process that includes the steps of depositing a photosensitive layer, selectively illuminating (irradiating in a predefined pattern) parts of the photosensitive resin and developing to form the cavity [0043]-[0044]. The reference does not teach the step of an antireflective treatment before depositing photosensitive resin.
However, RABAROT teaches in the art of photolithography the use of antireflective layers below a photosensitive resin layer is known to prevent reflections [0086]. The reflections created unwanted parasite patterns in the resin after development [0067]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the antireflective layer in the photolithography method of CUSIN to prevent parasite patterns in the developed photosensitive layer (the mold).
Regarding claim 2,
When performing the photolithography according to RABAROT, the reference teaches angling the light beam with a prism (not perpendicular to the substrate) and causing variation of the angle of incidence during the patterning step [0051] and [0094]-[0095]. Varying the angle of incidence also varies the position of the light striking on the substrate/antireflective layer.
Regarding claim 4,
RABAROT further teaches including an index adaptation layer 800 between the mask and photosensitive layer Fig. 8 and [0088]. The layer replaces air with a material with different refractive index [0089]. The material can be glycerin [0088] which results in an increased angle of incidence compared to air according to applicant’s disclosure.
Regarding claim 7,
CUSIN teaches the substrate can flat (shape of plate) and made of silicon [0038].
Regarding claim 8,
CUSIN teaches the substrate 1 can include features 5 (hollows) with angles vertical to the flat surface (inclined angle to the plane) see Figs. 1-5.
Regarding claims 11 and 12,
CUSIN teaches filling the mold by electrodeposition [0008].
Regarding claim 13,
CUSIN teaches releasing (detaching) the component from the substrate and mold [0009].
Regarding claims 15 and 20,
CUSIN teaches electroplating and describes the component as metal-based which can be an alloy of nickel [0047].
Regarding claim 16,
CUSIN teaches the part made can be decorative [0025].
Regarding claim 17,
RABAROT teaches the angle of incidence can be 50-80°C [0097].
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CUSIN et al. (US 2017/0130353) in view of RABAROT et al. (US 2007/0003839) further in view of LIU et al. (US 2010/0092894).
Regarding claim 3,
RABAROT teaches the absorbent layer 700 (anti-reflective layer) can be a polymer or inorganic layer [0086] or resin mixed with carbon pigments [0108]. The reference specifically teaches using bottom antireflective coating (BARC) but does not expressly teach what deposition technique is used to deposit the layer. However, LIU teaches that BARC can be prepared by spin coating [0097]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill to look to the art for known methods of depositing a BARC and use known methods in the photolithography process of RABAROT.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CUSIN et al. (US 2017/0130353) in view of RABAROT et al. (US 2007/0003839) further in view of RAHMAN et al. (US 2007/0248913).
Regarding claim 5,
RABAROT teaches an antireflective film used in a photolithography process with air replaced by a material with different refractive index (glycerin) but does not teach the irradiation of resin inside a vessel containing a medium different from air. However, photolithography performed a vessel with a medium different from air is known as immersion photolithography. Immersion photolithography is known in the art and is used with antireflective coatings according to RAHMAN [0014]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to use a vessel with a medium other than air because dry photolithography and immersion photolithography are known equivalent techniques for performing photolithography.
Regarding claim 6,
RAHMAN also notes that when using an antireflective layer for photolithography, the antireflective coating is designed to be dry etched (at least partially removed) [0013]. The etch rate of photoresist (after irradiation) is low when compared to the antireflective layer [0013]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to remove extraneous material (antireflective material) from the created mold to ensure the quality of the molded product.
Claim(s) 8, 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CUSIN et al. (US 2017/0130353) in view of RABAROT et al. (US 2007/0003839) further in view of HOSHINO et al. (US 2022/0206437).
Regarding claim 8,
CUSIN teaches the substrate 1 can include features 5 (hollows) with angles vertical to the flat surface (inclined angle to the plane) see Figs. 1-5. The hollows create an illusion of an angled/chamfered/beveled surface without actually being angled. However, HOSHINO teaches that hands for a timepiece can have angled surfaces to generate an excellent appearance/decoration fig. 12 and [0062]-[0064]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to angle the surface of the timepiece hand in CUSIN instead of an optical illusion of an angled surface to create an excellent appearance.
Regarding claim 9,
HOSHINO teaches creating an angle but does not expressly teach the angle is 10-80 degrees. However, the purpose of the angling is an aesthetic design choice. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the exact angle of the bevel/chamfer to any particular angle that is deemed to create a pleasing aesthetic, MPEP 2144.04.I.
Regarding claim 18,
HOSHINO teaches that a multitude of facets in Fig. 12. HOSHINO also teaches a rounded surface Fig. 13. A rounded or multifaceted surface is again considered prima facie obvious as an aesthetic design choice, MPEP 2144.04.I.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CUSIN et al. (US 2017/0130353) in view of RABAROT et al. (US 2007/0003839) further in view of CALAME et al. (US 2016/0179000).
Regarding claim 14,
CUSIN teaches electroplating a mold formed by photolithography but does not teach a polishing step. However, when electroplating a mold, CALAME teaches polishing the exposed surface to obtain a perfectly flat upper surface [0034]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a polishing step on the electroplated mold of CUSIN to ensure a flat surface of the molded/plated component.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CUSIN et al. (US 2017/0130353) in view of RABAROT et al. (US 2007/0003839) and CALAME et al. (US 2016/0179000) further in view of USHIKUBO (JP 59060978; citation to machine translation).
Regarding claim 19,
Modified CUSIN teaches the formation of a mold and plating a component followed by polishing to ensure a flat surface. The reference does not expressly teach depositing a coating with color or tribology effect. However, USHIKUBO teaches that external parts of a timepiece can have wear/corrosion resistance (tribology) and color tones adjusted by depositing aluminum by PVD abstract. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the deposited aluminum layer according to USHIKUBO to improve wear resistance and alter the color of the component fabricated in CUSIN.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is 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.
Claim 10 requires creating the hollow using two-photon polymerization, sterolithography or grayscale photolithography. This creation of the hollow is part of the of “procuring” the substrate in claim 8. The procuring of the substrate is distinguished from the deposition of photosensitive material on the substrate in claim 1. Accordingly, the claim requires forming the substrate/hollow part of the mold by a process according to claim 10 and then doing a separate photolithography after an antireflective treatment is performed. The mold is delimited by both the inclined surface of the hollow of the substrate and the formed photosensitive resin. The examiner could not motivate using a two different processes for forming the claimed mold with an antireflective treatment step between them. The examiner notes that the techniques in claim 10 are deposition techniques (not ablation or etching). Accordingly, the hollows are formed by building up the sidewalls of the inclined surfaces, but instead of continuing formation of the mold using one of the listed techniques an antireflective layer is applied and a photolithography method of claim 1 is performed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571272-1418. 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.
/AUSTIN MURATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712