CTNF 18/446,484 CTNF 93391 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Invention I, claims 1-8 and 16-20, in the reply filed on 01/29/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant's election in the reply filed 01/29/2026 failed to explicitly include whether the election was with or without traverse of the requirement. However, according to MPEP § 818.01, "The absence of any statement indicating whether the requirement to restrict is traversed or the failure to provide reasons for traverse will be treated as an election without traverse"; accordingly, consistent with the guidance found in the MPEP, the examiner is treating the election in the reply filed 01/29/2026 as election without traverse. Response to Amendment The amendment filed 01/29/2026 has been entered. Claims 9-15 have been canceled. Claims 21-27 are newly submitted claims. Accordingly, claims 1-8 and 16-27 remain pending and are the claims addressed and examined below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2013/0026668) in view of Farnworth (US 2008/0206930) . As to claim 1 : Lee discloses the claimed apparatus (i.e., molding apparatus 100 ) ( Lee at [0003], [0011], [0030], FIG. 1), comprising: a mold chase (i.e., molding apparatus 100 includes first jig 102 and second jig 102 ) ( Lee at [0030], FIG. 1) comprising: an upper portion comprising a top surface and an alignment mark on the top surface (i.e., second mold part 20 includes the second molding part 22 comprising protruding region 26, and the second mold part 20 is attached onto the second jig 104; a second alignment mark 42 is formed on the surface of second mold part 20 ) ( Lee at [0034], [0038], [0057], FIG. 1, FIG. 4); and a lower portion engaged with the upper portion to form a cavity therebetween (i.e., first mold part 10 includes first molding part 12 comprising a receiving region 16 such that protruding region 26 corresponds to the receiving region 16 ) ( Lee at [0032], [0057], FIG. 1, FIG. 4), wherein a pattern is provided on at least one of inner surfaces of the upper and lower portions (i.e., protruding region 26 corresponding to the receiving region 16 ) ( Lee at [0057], FIG. 1, FIG. 4); and a sensor facing the mold chase and detect the alignment mark of the upper portion and a position of the material in the mold chase (i.e., sensors 70 senses the second alignment mark 42 and transmits the results to the controller 50; where controller 50 determines the alignment state of the first mold part 10 and second mold part 20 ) ( Lee at [0039], [0041], FIG. 1). Lee discloses a molding apparatus but fails to disclose the claimed receiving a workpiece in a cavity formed between the lower portion engaged with the upper portion of the molding apparatus. However, Farnworth teaches an apparatus including a mold element bounding a mold cavity that is positioned to receive a semiconductor workpiece and an encapsulant ( Farnworth at [0018], [0022], [0024], FIGs. 3-6). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the semiconductor workpiece in a mold cavity so as to encapsulate the semiconductor workpiece as such is known in the art of encapsulating electronic components given the discussion of Farnworth above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. As to claim 2 : Lee and Farnworth disclose the apparatus of claim 1. Lee further discloses the claimed wherein the lower portion of the mold chase comprises: a base; and protrusions protruding from the base and arranged to form the pattern ( Lee at [0032], [0057], FIG. 1, FIG. 4). As to claim 3 : Lee and Farnworth disclose the apparatus of claim 1. Lee further discloses the claimed wherein the lower portion of the mold chase comprises: a wall; and the pattern recessed from the wall ( Lee at [0032], [0057], FIG. 1, FIG. 4). As to claim 4 : Lee and Farnworth disclose the apparatus of claim 1. Lee , modified by Farnworth , discloses the claimed wherein the lower portion of the mold chase comprises a wall; though, modified Lee fails to disclose the claimed wherein the lower portion of the mold chase comprises: a slanted inner surface provided on the wall and acting as the pattern. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the lower portion of the mold chase comprising a slanted inner surface provided on the wall and acting as the pattern, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. As to claim 7 : Lee and Farnworth disclose the apparatus of claim 1. Lee further discloses the claimed wherein a bottom surface of the upper portion of the mold chase comprises a plurality of convex protrusions arranged to form the pattern ( Lee at [0057], FIG. 1, FIG. 4). As to claim 8 : Lee and Farnworth disclose the apparatus of claim 1. Lee further discloses the claimed wherein a pair of engagement parts are provided on peripheries of the upper and lower portions of the mold chase ( Lee at [0038], FIG. 1, FIG. 4) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Farnworth as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yu (US 2010/0270692) . As to claim 5 : Lee and Farnworth disclose the apparatus of claim 1. Lee , modified by Farnworth , fails to disclose the claimed wherein a bottom surface of the upper portion of the mold chase comprises a plurality of concave recesses arranged to form the pattern. However, Yu teaches a mold including a molding surface 110 having a plurality of microstructures 120 formed therein, and the microstructures 120 are recesses defined in the molding surface 110 ( Yu at [0019], FIG. 2). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the molding surface having a plurality a concave recessed arranged to form the pattern as such is known in the art of optical molding techniques given the discussion of Yu above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is a mere change in shape of an element which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tahara et al. (US 2002/0181224) in view of Farnworth (US 2008/0206930) . As to claim 16 : Tahara discloses the claimed method (i.e., molding method of a light guide plate ) ( Tahara at [0001], [0022]), comprising: forming an optically molded layer by using a molding apparatus (i.e., mold assembly has a mold for forming a light guide plate made of a transparent resin ) ( Tahara at [0257], FIG. 1A) comprising: engaging an upper portion of a mold chase with a lower portion of the mold chase to form a cavity (i.e., the mold comprises a first mold member 10 and a second mold member 11 and a cavity 12 is formed when the mold is clamped ) ( Tahara at [0257], FIG. 1A), wherein a pattern is provided on at least one of inner surfaces of the upper and lower portions (i.e., insert block 20 is in the first mold member 10, and the insert block includes concave portions 23 ) ( Tahara at [0257], [0259], FIG. 1A); filling the cavity with a moldable material (i.e., molten transparent resin is introduced into the cavity 12 ) ( Tahara at [0257]); and wherein the mold chase imprints the pattern in the moldable material to form the optically molded layer with a corresponding pattern (i.e., molten transparent resin is introduced into the cavity 12; and insert block 20 is in the first mold member 10, and the insert block includes concave portions 23 facing the cavity 12 ), and the corresponding pattern functions as a light-guide element (i.e., light guide plate 40, where the concave portions 23 have a form complementary to the convex portions 42 formed in the first main surface 41 of the light guide plate 40 ) ( Tahara at [0257], [0258], [0259], FIG. 1A, FIG. 4). Tahara fails to explicitly disclose the claimed method comprising curing the moldable material. However, Farnworth teaches an apparatus including a mold element bounding a mold cavity that is positioned to receive a semiconductor workpiece and an encapsulant ( Farnworth at [0018], [0022], [0024], FIGs. 3-6). Farnworth further teaches the encapsulant, including the workpiece encapsulant, is cooled and/or cured or otherwise hardened prior to removing the encapsulated workpiece from the mold ( Farnworth at [0029]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the semiconductor workpiece in a mold cavity so as to encapsulate the semiconductor workpiece and cure the encapsulant prior to removing from the mold as such is known in the art of encapsulating electronic components given the discussion of Farnworth above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. As to claim 17 : Tahara and Farnworth disclose the method of claim 16. Farnworth further discloses the claimed method further comprising: embedding a workpiece in the moldable material, wherein after forming the optically molded layer, the workpiece is wrapped around by the optically molded layer and optically coupled to the optically molded layer ( Farnworth at [0018], [0022], [0024], FIGs. 3-6), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 16. As to claim 19 : Tahara and Farnworth disclose the method of claim 17. Farnworth further discloses the claimed wherein embedding the workpiece in the moldable material comprises: placing the workpiece on the lower portion of the mold chase; and dispensing the moldable material to cover the workpiece after placing the workpiece ( Farnworth at [0018], [0022], [0024], FIGs. 3-6), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 16. As to claim 20 : Tahara and Farnworth disclose the method of claim 17. Farnworth further discloses the claimed wherein embedding the workpiece in the moldable material comprises: dispensing the moldable material to cover the workpiece; and placing the workpiece on the lower portion of the mold chase after dispensing the moldable material ( Farnworth at [0018], [0022], [0024], FIGs. 3-6), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 16 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tahara and Farnworth as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2013/0026668) . As to claim 18 : Tahara and Farnworth disclose the method of claim 16. Tahara , modified by, Farnworth , fail to explicitly disclose the claimed method further comprising: aligning the workpiece with the pattern of the mold chase by using a sensor, wherein the sensor facing the mold chase is configured to detect an alignment mark on an outer surface of the mold chase and a position of the workpiece in the mold chase. However, Lee teaches a molding apparatus and a molding method ( Lee at Title). Lee further teaches the molding apparatus used for the molding method including second alignment marks 40 and 42 formed on the first mold part 10 and the second mold part 20, respectively; wherein sensors 70 are used to sense and transmit information to the controller 50 for determining the alignment state of the first and second mold parts 10 and 20 through first and second alignment marks 30, 32, 40, 42 ( Lee at [0038], [0039], [0041], FIG. 1) It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the alignment marks and sensors for maintaining alignment throughout a molding process as such is known in the art of optical molding techniques given the discussion of Lee above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results with the added benefit of doing so improving the degree of molding precision (as recognized by Lee at [0003]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tahara et al. (US 2002/0181224) in view of Farnworth (US 2008/0206930) . As to claim 21 : Tahara discloses the claimed method (i.e., molding method of a light guide plate ) ( Tahara at [0001], [0022]) comprising: forming a moldable material on the first portion of the mold chase (i.e., mold assembly has a mold for forming a light guide plate made of a transparent resin ) ( Tahara at [0257], FIG. 1A); closing the mold chase by engaging a second portion of the mold chase with the first portion of the mold chase (i.e., the mold comprises a first mold member 10 and a second mold member 11 and a cavity 12 is formed when the mold is clamped ) ( Tahara at [0257], FIG. 1A); and wherein the mold chase is provided with a pattern (i.e., insert block 20 is in the first mold member 10, and the insert block includes concave portions 23 ) ( Tahara at [0257], [0259], FIG. 1A), the mold chase imprints the pattern in the moldable material to form the optically molded layer comprising a corresponding pattern (i.e., molten transparent resin is introduced into the cavity 12; and insert block 20 is in the first mold member 10, and the insert block includes concave portions 23 facing the cavity 12 ), and the corresponding pattern functions as a light-guide element (i.e., light guide plate 40, where the concave portions 23 have a form complementary to the convex portions 42 formed in the first main surface 41 of the light guide plate 40 ) ( Tahara at [0257], [0258], [0259], FIG. 1A, FIG. 4). Tahara fails to disclose the claimed placing a workpiece on a first portion of a mold chase of a molding apparatus; moldable material to cover the workpiece; and curing the moldable material to form an optically molded layer covering the workpiece. However, Farnworth teaches an apparatus including a mold element bounding a mold cavity that is positioned to receive a semiconductor workpiece and an encapsulant ( Farnworth at [0018], [0022], [0024], FIGs. 3-6). Farnworth further teaches the encapsulant, including the workpiece encapsulant, is cooled and/or cured or otherwise hardened prior to removing the encapsulated workpiece from the mold ( Farnworth at [0029]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the semiconductor workpiece in a mold cavity so as to encapsulate the semiconductor workpiece and cure the encapsulant prior to removing from the mold as such is known in the art of encapsulating electronic components given the discussion of Farnworth above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tahara and Farnworth as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Mess (US 2001/0044171) . As to claim 23 : Tahara and Farnworth disclose the method of claim 21. Tahara , modified by Farnworth , fail to disclose the claimed wherein at least one of the first portion and the second portion comprises a venting port, and the method further comprises: vacuuming the mold chase through the venting port after closing the mold chase, wherein the moldable material spreads out in the mold chase during vacuuming the mold chase. However, Mess teaches a molding machine for semiconductors which includes a raised relief portion 52 and through-vent 54 are formed in the lower mold plate 14 for collecting and venting gases emitted by a substrate 40 during the encapsulation process; where through-vent 54 passes through the lower mold plate 14 to the atmosphere ( Mess at [0030], [0036], Fig. 6). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the venting port to create a vacuum after closing a mold as such is known in the art of methods of encapsulating semiconductors given the discussion of Mess above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, with the added benefit of doing so eliminating gas buildup and accompanying pressure rises (as recognized by Mess at [0036]) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tahara and Farnworth as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Ogino et al. (US 2007/0164458) . As to claim 27 : Tahara and Farnworth disclose the method of claim 21. Tahara , modified by Farnworth , fail to disclose the claimed wherein at least one of the first and second portions of the mold chase is made of a transparent material. However, Ogino teaches a pattern forming method and its mold ( Ogino at Title). Ogino further teaches the mold being made of a transparent substrate, for example, quartz or glass, and allows passage of light ( Ogino at [0071]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a mold being made of a transparent material as such is known in the art of molding given the discussion of Ogino above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, which has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. One would have been motivated to have a mold being made of a transparent material for the purpose of light being able to pass through. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 6, 22 and 24-26 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 primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter is that the prior art fails to provide any teachings/suggestions/motivations or other rationales to arrive at the alignment mark on the top surface of the upper portion of the mold chase is disposed directly above one of the concave recesses as required by claim 6; the alignment mark overlaps the pattern of the mold chase in a stacking direction of the first and second portions as required by claim 22; the method further comprises: coupling the workpiece to a second protrusion of the protrusions; and filling a space between the protrusions and the groove with the moldable material after closing the mold chase required by claim 24; an alignment mark disposed on the top surface and overlapping the recess as required by claim 25; and after curing the moldable material, the optically molded layer comprises the light-guide element laterally extending from a sidewall of the workpiece as required by claim 26. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAILEIGH K. DARNELL whose telephone number is (469)295-9287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, MST. 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, Galen H. Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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. /BAILEIGH KATE DARNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1743 Application/Control Number: 18/446,484 Page 2 Art Unit: 1743 Application/Control Number: 18/446,484 Page 3 Art Unit: 1743 Application/Control Number: 18/446,484 Page 4 Art Unit: 1743 Application/Control Number: 18/446,484 Page 5 Art Unit: 1743 Application/Control Number: 18/446,484 Page 6 Art Unit: 1743 Application/Control Number: 18/446,484 Page 7 Art Unit: 1743 Application/Control Number: 18/446,484 Page 8 Art Unit: 1743 Application/Control Number: 18/446,484 Page 9 Art Unit: 1743 Application/Control Number: 18/446,484 Page 10 Art Unit: 1743 Application/Control Number: 18/446,484 Page 11 Art Unit: 1743 Application/Control Number: 18/446,484 Page 12 Art Unit: 1743
Prosecution Insights