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 Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Since scope of the claims directed to “A method of a segmented electroplating gold finger” (see lines 1-2 of the base claim 1 and the recites of” , comprising a substrate, which is drilled and electroplated, wherein the method of the segmented electroplating gold finger comprises: “ (see lines 1-3) directed to substrate entity which makes scope of the claim unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
“a.; b; to g.” (claim 1, lines 4, 8-13) should be deleted for clarity of method claim formats.
In formulate the reject ion on the merits the examiner assumes that claims directed to method (see ¶ [0001] of applicant specification and claims will be rejected bases on such method.
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 1-6 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.
It is suggesting the following preamble for clarity of claims scope:
-- A method of manufacturing a printed circuit board (PCB) comprising steps of:--
Further rewritten lines 1-3 of preamble to method limitation such as follows:
--“providing a substrate included drilling and electroplating the substrate; “--
The phrase: “a. first etching, forming circuit patterns and gold finger parts on the substrate, wherein the gold finger part is composed of several mutually independent gold fingers, a lead channel is provided between the two adjacent gold fingers, and a side lead connected to each of the gold fingers is arranged on the lead channel;” (claim 1, lines 4-7) is awkwardly worded and confusing and should be rewritten into positive method limitation.
Such as following:
-- forming circuit patterns and gold finger parts on the substrate by etching, wherein the gold finger formed includes several mutually independent gold fingers; “--
“a lead channel is provided between the two adjacent gold fingers, and a side lead connected to each of the gold fingers is arranged on the lead channel;”(claim 1, lines 5-7) is not positive method limitation and should be rewritten to:
--“providing a lead channel between the two adjacent gold fingers; and connecting a side lead to each of the gold finger while arranging the gold fingers on the lead channel;”--, for clarity of the method claim formats.
“b. solder resist, performing solder resist protection on the etched substrate; “(claim 1, line 8) should be updated to reflect method claim formats, as following:
--"performing solder resist protection on the etched substrate”--
“c. the gold fingers partly covered with a wet film; “ (claim 1, line 9) should be updated to positive method limitation such as:
--“partly covering the gold fingers with a wet film”--
Steps d-f (see claim 1, lines 10-12) is/are not understood and should be rewritten into method claim format
Step g, is vague and indefinite and should be further amended as following:
--"further etching to remove the side lead to form the PCB”--.
“step a”(claim 2, line 2) should be updated to:-- “the forming circuit and gold fingers”--, to reflect changes as suggested above (see base claim 1) .
“is composed”(claim 2, line 2); “is connected”(claim 3, line 2); “is performed”(claim 4, line 2); “is pasted” (claim 5, line 2); “is separated”(claim 5, line 3); “is composed”(claim 6, line 2) is/are not positively inventive method steps and should be updated, the use of “composing; connecting; performing . . .” is suggested.
It is also suggested that step b (claim 4, line 2); step d (claim 5, line 2) should be updated to reflect actual step as suggested in claim 1 above.
The above is example of inconsistency and problematic issue noticed by the Examiner. Applicant is respectfully asked to review the entire application for any deficiency that may still be present. Because the claims as present formats are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Song et al (CN 108174510 A). Alternatively, claim(s) 1-4 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al.
Song et al discloses the claimed method of a segmented electroplating gold finger, comprising a substrate, which is drilled and electroplated, wherein the method of the segmented electroplating gold finger comprises:
a. first etching, forming circuit patterns 1, 2, 3 and gold finger parts on the substrate, wherein the gold finger part is composed of several mutually independent gold fingers, a lead channel is provided between the two adjacent gold fingers, and a side lead connected to each of the gold fingers is arranged on the lead channel (see abstract Fig.1 in conjunction with Fig. 2 and discussion in pages 2-3 of the translation);
b. solder resist, performing solder resist protection on the etched substrate (see Fig. 2 and discussion in page 3, step S2 of the translation);
e. gold finger electroplating (see Fig. 2 and discussion in page 3, step S3 of the translation);
g. second etching, removing the side lead, and completing a finished product (see page 4, step S5 for second etching).
Regarding to steps ”c. the gold fingers partly covered with a wet film; d. parallel exposure to perform image transfer; f. an adhesive glue to protect the gold finger and a circuit that is required to be retained;” not inventive method features when departing from the applied prior art to Song et al
Limitations of claims 4-6 as best understood is/are met by the above, since no further positive method limitations existed in these claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
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, Thomas J Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/MINH N TRINH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729 mt
Prosecution Insights