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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-15 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.
As to claim 1, the recitation “in which, in a case where…” is indefinite because of the phrase “in a case”. As drafted, the “in a case” does not provide concrete distinction of the particulars of the pattern because it is a conditional phrase. This phrase modifies the “in which” which is not conditional and thus strictly defines the bounds of the instant claim language. Thus, because the phrase “in a case” conditionally directly modified a non conditional phrase “in which” it is indefinite if the limitations subsequent the “in a case” further define the scope of the claims. For examination on the merits, the phrase “in a case” will not be construed to define optional limitations of the surface area limitations, rather relying on the first non-conditional phrase “in which”. The Examiner suggests deletion of the phrase “in a case” as it appears superfluous and not necessary when defining the instant structure of the surface area of the dummy region relative the plating region.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the dummy region" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the recesses" in line 2. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the protrusions" in line 3.There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 1, from which claim 4 ultimately depends from, recites “a recess” and “a protrusion” with respect to the product pattern, thus it is indefinite which recess or protrusions the limitation of claim 4 are referencing.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the protrusion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because indefinite which or the plurality the claimed protrusion of claim 5 is referencing of the plurality of the protrusions of claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the protrusion" and “the recess” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because indefinite which or the plurality the claimed protrusion of claim 6 is referencing of the plurality of the protrusions of claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the protrusion" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because indefinite which or the plurality the claimed protrusion of claim 1 is referencing of the plurality of the protrusions of claim 1 with respect to the dummy pattern
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the protrusion" in lines 2 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because indefinite which or the plurality the claimed protrusion of claim 1 is referencing of the plurality of the protrusions of claim 1 with respect to the dummy pattern
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the protrusion" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because indefinite which or the plurality the claimed protrusion of claim 1 is referencing of the plurality of the protrusions of claim 1 with respect to the dummy pattern
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the protrusion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because indefinite which or the plurality the claimed protrusion of claim 1 is referencing of the plurality of the protrusions of claim 1 with respect to the dummy pattern
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the other one" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 14-15 are rejected as incorporating the features of claim 1 and thus rejected for indefiniteness for the reasons outlined above by virtue of the dependance incorporating indefinite claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1- 1-3, 6, 10, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kinuta et al (JP 2015/030881 A with citations drawn to the attached translation).
As to claim 1, Kinuta discloses a master plate having an electrodeposition surface in which a metal formed article is formed by electrodeposition (Fig. 1 (c) is the master plate used before plating), and having a product region (Fig. 3 #s area with 17) in which a product part, which is cut out as a product from the metal formed article, is formed and a non-product region other than the product region in the electrodeposition surface, the master plate (area with #s 18 Fig. 3) comprising:
a product pattern that is formed in the product region and includes a recess and a protrusion (“resist pattern” 17 where the recesses are the spaces between each individual protrusion 17 with “b” width in Fig. 1c); and
a dummy pattern that is formed in at least a partial region of the non-product region and includes a plurality of recesses and a plurality of protrusions (“resist pattern” 18 where the recesses are the spaces between each individual protrusion 18 with “c” width in Fig. 1c), the dummy pattern in which, in a case where a surface area of the product pattern per unit area of the product region is a first surface area, and a surface area of the dummy pattern per unit area of a dummy region in which the dummy pattern is formed is a second surface area, the second surface area is larger than the first surface area (Fig. 3a,b,c with more resist patterns in the dummy region than the product region thus resulting in more surface area due to the sidewalls as provided in accordance with the interpretation afforded in the instant specification at [0030]).
As to claim 2, Kinuta further discloses wherein an area of the dummy region is larger than that of the product region (See Fig. 3b and 3c relative sizes as identified below).
PNG
media_image1.png
380
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 3, Kinuta further discloses wherein the plurality of recesses or the plurality of protrusions are regularly arranged in the dummy region. (See arrangement in image above at regular intervals).
As to claim 6, Kinuta discloses wherein an aspect ratio of the protrusion or the recess of the dummy pattern is larger than an aspect ratio of the protrusion or the recess of the product pattern (because the height shown in Fig. 1 of the resist 12 is the same in both the product and dummy regions, and the diameter of the protrusion of the product region is larger than the dummy region, thus the aspect ratio with the same height is larger in the dummy region because the divisible denominator is smaller).
As to claims 10 and 11, Kinuta further discloses wherein the master plate includes a conductive substrate that has the electrodeposition surface (Fig. 1 #11), and a nonconductive mask that is formed on the electrodeposition surface and controls growth of the metal formed article, and
the protrusion of the product pattern and the protrusion of the dummy pattern are formed by the nonconductive mask. (Fig. 1 #12 photoresist).
As to claim 14, Kinuta discloses A manufacturing method of a metal formed article, the method comprising:
an electroforming step of growing, in a state where the master plate according to claim 1 is immersed in an electroforming liquid, the metal formed article by precipitating metal on the electrodeposition surface (Fig. 1 (d)-(e) with citation to claim 1 above disclosing the master plate, pg. 3 “Next, as shown in FIG. 1 (d), the conductive substrate 11 exposed to the outer surface except for the photosensitive resist patterns 17 and 18 by a predetermined electroforming process in a nickel sulfamate bath electroforming tank. An electroformed metal 19 that is nickel is deposited from the surface by electroforming.”); and
a peeling step of peeling the metal formed article from the master plate (Fig. 1 (f)-(g).
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinuta in view of Fredenberg et al (US 2009/0071837 A1).
As to claim 15, Kinuta fails to explicitly disclose wherein a water contact angle of a surface of the protrusion of the product pattern of the master plate is 20° or less.
Fredenberg discloses treating insulating pattern layers with a hydrophilic treatment (i.e. less than 20 degree water contact angle) in order to allow electrolyte to wet and fill the cavities of a pattern. ([0127]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a hydrophilizing treatment as taught by Fredenberg in the method of Kinuta in order to allow electrolyte to wet and fill the cavities of a pattern. (Fredenberg [0127]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 7-9, and 13, 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUIS J RUFO whose telephone number is (571)270-7716. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/LOUIS J RUFO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795