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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant's election, without traverse, of claims 1-4, 6, and 11-18 in the “Response to Restriction Requirement” filed on 06/01/2026 is acknowledged and entered by the Examiner.
This office action consider claims 1-19 pending for prosecution, wherein claims 5, 7-10, and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration, and claims 1-4, 6, and 11-18 are presented for examination.
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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (100; Fig 3A; [0063]) = (element 100; Figure No. 3A; Paragraph No. [0063]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
2. Claims 1, 2, 6, 11, 12, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akusta et al. (US 20220163701 A1; hereinafter Akusta).
Regarding claim 1, Akusta teaches a display panel (see the entire document, specifically Fig. 5; [0163+], and as cited below), comprising:
a circuit substrate ({1, 2}; Fig. 3 in view of Figs. 1A-1B, 2; [0034]) provided with a plurality of pixel areas (3; Fig. 3 in view of Figs. 1A-1B, 2; [0036-0037]);
a plurality of light-emitting elements ({30, 121}; Fig. 3 in view of Figs. 1A-1B, 2; see [0026-0027, 0032, 0035-0037]) disposed in each of the pixel areas (3; Fig. 3 in view of Figs. 1A-1B, 2; [0036-0037]);
a plurality of microlenses (78; Fig. 3 in view of Figs. 1A-1B, 2, 9, 13; [0040-0042]) disposed on the circuit substrate ({1, 2}; Fig. 3 in view of Figs. 1A-1B, 2; [0034]) and respectively overlapped with the light-emitting elements ({30, 121}; Fig. 3 in view of Figs. 1A-1B, 2; see [0026-0027, 0032, 0035-0037]); and
a plurality of dummy (78D; Fig. 3 in view of Figs. 1A-1B, 2, 9, 13; [0040-0042, 0085-0086, 0127-0132]) microlenses disposed between the microlenses (78; Fig. 3 in view of Figs. 1A-1B, 2, 9, 13; [0040-0042, 0085-0086, 0127-0132]) and not overlapped with the light-emitting elements ({30, 121}; Fig. 3 in view of Figs. 1A-1B, 2, 9, 13; see [0026-0027, 0032, 0035-0037]).
Regarding claim 2, Akusta teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Akusta further teaches wherein any two adjacent microlenses (78; Fig Fig. 3 in view of Figs. 1A-1B, 2, 9, 13; [0040-0042, 0085-0086, 0127-0132]) and dummy microlenses (78D; Fig. 3 in view of Figs. 1A-1B, 2, 9, 13; [0040-0042, 0085-0086, 0127-0132]) are arranged at a pitch along a direction.
Regarding claim 6, Akusta teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Akusta further teaches wherein each of the microlenses (78; Fig. 3 in view of Figs. 1A-1B, 2, 9, 13; [0040-0042, 0085-0086, 0127-0132]) has a first circular diameter, each of the dummy microlenses (78D; Fig. 3 in view of Figs. 1A-1B, 2, 9, 13; [0040-0042, 0085-0086, 0127-0132]) has a second circular diameter, and the first circular diameter (78; Fig. 3 in view of Figs. 1A-1B, 2, 9, 13; [0040-0042, 0085-0086, 0127-0132]) is equal to the second circular diameter (78D; Fig. 3 in view of Figs. 1A-1B, 2, 9, 13; [0040-0042, 0085-0086, 0127-0132]).
Regarding claim 11, Akusta teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Akusta further comprising: a light-shielding pattern layer ({7: 71, 72}; Fig. 3 in view of Fig. 8; [0041, 00790-0084]) disposed on the circuit substrate ({1, 2}; Fig. 3 in view of Figs. 1A-1B, 2; [0034]) and having a plurality of openings disposed overlapped with the light-emitting elements ({30, 121}; Fig. 3 in view of Figs. 1A-1B, 2; see [0026-0027, 0032, 0035-0037]).
Regarding claim 12, Akusta teaches all of the features of claim 11.
Akusta further teaches wherein an orthographic projection of the dummy microlenses (78D; Fig. 3 in view of Figs. 1A-1B, 2, 9, 13; [0040-0042]) on the circuit substrate ({1, 2}; Fig. 3 in view of Figs. 1A-1B, 2; [0034]) is located within an orthographic projection of the light-shielding pattern layer ({7: 71, 72}; Fig. 3 in view of Fig. 8; [0041, 00790-0084]) on the circuit substrate ({1, 2}; Fig. 3 in view of Figs. 1A-1B, 2; [0034]).
Regarding claim 16, Akusta teaches all of the features of claim 11.
Akusta further comprising: an isolation structure layer ({24, 25}; Fig. 3 in view of Fig. 12; see [0110, 0117]) disposed on the circuit substrate ({1, 2}; Fig. 3 in view of Figs. 1A-1B, 2; [0034]) and having a plurality of grooves (see [0110, 0117]), wherein the light-emitting elements ({30, 121}; Fig. 3 in view of Figs. 1A-1B, 2; see [0026-0027, 0032, 0035-0037]) are disposed in the grooves, and the light- shielding pattern layer ({7: 71, 72}; Fig. 3 in view of Fig. 8; [0041, 00790-0084]) is disposed on the isolation structure layer ({24, 25}; Fig. 3 in view of Fig. 12; see [0110, 0117]) and extend
Regarding claim 18, Akusta teaches all of the features of claim 11.
Akusta further teaches wherein an orthographic projection of the dummy microlenses (78D; Fig. 3 in view of Figs. 1A-1B, 2, 9, 13; [0040-0042]) on the circuit substrate ({1, 2}; Fig. 3 in view of Figs. 1A-1B, 2; [0034]) is not overlapped with an orthographic projection of the light-shielding pattern layer ({7: 71, 72}; Fig. 3 in view of Fig. 8; [0041, 00790-0084]) on the circuit substrate ({1, 2}; Fig. 3 in view of Figs. 1A-1B, 2; [0034]).
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 of this title, 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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (30A; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
3. Claims 3-4, 13-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Akusta et al. (US 20220163701 A1; hereinafter Akusta), in view of the following statement.
Regarding claim 3, Akusta teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Akusta further teaches wherein a percentage value of an orthographic projection area of the microlenses (78; Fig. 3 in view of Figs. 1A-1B, 2, 9, 13; [0040-0042]) on the circuit substrate ({1, 2}; Fig. 3 in view of Figs. 1A-1B, 2; [0034]) to an orthographic projection area of any of the pixel areas (3; Fig. 3 in view of Figs. 1A-1B, 2; [0036-0037]) on the circuit substrate ({1, 2}; Fig. 3 in view of Figs. 1A-1B, 2; [0034]) (see below for “ranges from 0.5% to 30%”).
As noted above, Akusta does not expressly disclose “wherein a percentage value of an orthographic projection area of the microlenses on the circuit substrate to an orthographic projection area of any of the pixel areas on the circuit substrate ranges from 0.5% to 30%”.
However, it has been held that “wherein a percentage value of an orthographic projection area of the microlenses on the circuit substrate to an orthographic projection area of any of the pixel areas on the circuit substrate ranges from 0.5% to 30%” will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such wherein a percentage value of an orthographic projection area of the microlenses on the circuit substrate to an orthographic projection area of any of the pixel areas on the circuit substrate ranges from 0.5% to 30% is critical, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, there is nothing in the present application to indicate that the claimed wherein a percentage value of an orthographic projection area of the microlenses on the circuit substrate to an orthographic projection area of any of the pixel areas on the circuit substrate ranges from 0.5% to 30% is critical and will achieve unexpected results over the range outside of the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have wherein a percentage value of an orthographic projection area of the microlenses on the circuit substrate to an orthographic projection area of any of the pixel areas on the circuit substrate ranges from 0.5% to 30% as claimed in device because having the wherein a percentage value of an orthographic projection area of the microlenses on the circuit substrate to an orthographic projection area of any of the pixel areas on the circuit substrate ranges from 0.5% to 30% can be optimized during routine experimentation depending upon a particular application.
The applicants have not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of said first predetermined amount.
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed distance or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 4, Akusta teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Akusta further teaches wherein a percentage value of an orthographic projection area of the dummy microlenses (78D; Fig. 3 in view of Figs. 1A-1B, 2, 9, 13; [0040-0042]) on the circuit substrate ({1, 2}; Fig. 3 in view of Figs. 1A-1B, 2; [0034]) to an orthographic projection area of any of the pixel areas (3; Fig. 3 in view of Figs. 1A-1B, 2; [0036-0037]) on the circuit substrate ({1, 2}; Fig. 3 in view of Figs. 1A-1B, 2; [0034]) (see below for “ranges from 0.2% to 70%”).
As noted above, Akusta does not expressly disclose “wherein a percentage value of an orthographic projection area of the dummy microlenses on the circuit substrate to the orthographic projection area of any of the pixel areas on the circuit substrate ranges from 0.2% to 70%”.
However, it has been held that “wherein a percentage value of an orthographic projection area of the dummy microlenses on the circuit substrate to the orthographic projection area of any of the pixel areas on the circuit substrate ranges from 0.2% to 70%” will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such wherein a percentage value of an orthographic projection area of the dummy microlenses on the circuit substrate to the orthographic projection area of any of the pixel areas on the circuit substrate ranges from 0.2% to 70%is critical, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, there is nothing in the present application to indicate that the claimed wherein a percentage value of an orthographic projection area of the dummy microlenses on the circuit substrate to the orthographic projection area of any of the pixel areas on the circuit substrate ranges from 0.2% to 70% is critical and will achieve unexpected results over the range outside of the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have wherein a percentage value of an orthographic projection area of the dummy microlenses on the circuit substrate to the orthographic projection area of any of the pixel areas on the circuit substrate ranges from 0.2% to 70% as claimed in device because having the wherein a percentage value of an orthographic projection area of the dummy microlenses on the circuit substrate to the orthographic projection area of any of the pixel areas on the circuit substrate ranges from 0.2% to 70% can be optimized during routine experimentation depending upon a particular application.
The applicants have not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of said first predetermined amount.
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed distance or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 13, Akusta teaches all of the features of claim 11.
Akusta further teaches wherein the light-shielding pattern layer ({7: 71, 72}; Fig. 3 in view of Fig. 8; [0041, 00790-0084]) comprises a plurality of (see below for “annular”) patterns (patterns of {7: 71, 72}; Fig. 3 in view of Fig. 8; [0041, 00790-0084]) defining the openings and separated from each other.
As noted above, Akusta does not expressly disclose “wherein the light-shielding pattern layer comprises a plurality of annular patterns defining the openings and separated from each other”.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the light-shielding pattern layer comprises a plurality of annular patterns defining the openings and separated from each other” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without wherein the light-shielding pattern layer comprises a plurality of annular patterns defining the openings and separated from each other). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein the light-shielding pattern layer comprises a plurality of annular patterns defining the openings and separated from each other” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “wherein the light-shielding pattern layer comprises a plurality of annular patterns defining the openings and separated from each other”. Thus, the claimed “wherein the light-shielding pattern layer comprises a plurality of annular patterns defining the openings and separated from each other” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein the light-shielding pattern layer comprises a plurality of annular patterns defining the openings and separated from each other” is significant. Thus, the claimed limitation of “wherein the light-shielding pattern layer comprises a plurality of annular patterns defining the openings and separated from each other” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein the light-shielding pattern layer comprises a plurality of annular patterns defining the openings and separated from each other” is not patentable over Akusta.
Regarding claim 14, Akusta teaches all of the features of claim 13.
Akusta further teaches wherein a ratio of an outer diameter of each of the (see below for “annular”) patterns (patterns of {7: 71, 72}; Fig. 3 in view of Fig. 8; [0041, 00790-0084]) to a circular diameter of each of the microlenses (78D; Fig. 3 in view of Figs. 1A-1B, 2, 9, 13; [0040-0042]) (see below for “is greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 1.5”).
As noted above, Akusta does not expressly disclose “wherein a ratio of an outer diameter of each of the annular patterns to a circular diameter of each of the microlenses is greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 1.5”.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein a ratio of an outer diameter of each of the annular patterns to a circular diameter of each of the microlenses is greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 1.5” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without wherein a ratio of an outer diameter of each of the annular patterns to a circular diameter of each of the microlenses is greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 1.5). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein a ratio of an outer diameter of each of the annular patterns to a circular diameter of each of the microlenses is greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 1.5” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “wherein a ratio of an outer diameter of each of the annular patterns to a circular diameter of each of the microlenses is greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 1.5”. Thus, the claimed “wherein a ratio of an outer diameter of each of the annular patterns to a circular diameter of each of the microlenses is greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 1.5” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein a ratio of an outer diameter of each of the annular patterns to a circular diameter of each of the microlenses is greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 1.5” is significant. Thus, the claimed limitation of “wherein a ratio of an outer diameter of each of the annular patterns to a circular diameter of each of the microlenses is greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 1.5” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein a ratio of an outer diameter of each of the annular patterns to a circular diameter of each of the microlenses is greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 1.5” is not patentable over Akusta.
Fruthermore, it has been held that “wherein a ratio of an outer diameter of each of the annular patterns to a circular diameter of each of the microlenses is greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 1.5” will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such wherein a ratio of an outer diameter of each of the annular patterns to a circular diameter of each of the microlenses is greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 1.5 is critical, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, there is nothing in the present application to indicate that the claimed wherein a ratio of an outer diameter of each of the annular patterns to a circular diameter of each of the microlenses is greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 1.5 is critical and will achieve unexpected results over the range outside of the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have wherein a ratio of an outer diameter of each of the annular patterns to a circular diameter of each of the microlenses is greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 1.5 as claimed in device because having the wherein a ratio of an outer diameter of each of the annular patterns to a circular diameter of each of the microlenses is greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 1.5 can be optimized during routine experimentation depending upon a particular application.
The applicants have not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of said first predetermined amount.
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed distance or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 15, Akusta teaches all of the features of claim 13.
Akusta further teaches wherein an inner diameter of each of the (see below for “annular”) patterns (patterns of {7: 71, 72}; Fig. 3 in view of Fig. 8; [0041, 00790-0084]) (see below for “is greater than or equal to”) a width of each of the light-emitting elements ({121, 30}; Fig. 3 in view of Figs. 1A-1B, 2; see [0026-0027, 0032, 0035-0037]) into the grooves.
As noted above, Akusta does not expressly disclose “wherein an inner diameter of each of the annular patterns is greater than or equal to a width of each of the light-emitting elements”.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein an inner diameter of each of the annular patterns is greater than or equal to a width of each of the light-emitting elements” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without wherein an inner diameter of each of the annular patterns is greater than or equal to a width of each of the light-emitting elements). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein an inner diameter of each of the annular patterns is greater than or equal to a width of each of the light-emitting elements” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “wherein an inner diameter of each of the annular patterns is greater than or equal to a width of each of the light-emitting elements”. Thus, the claimed “wherein an inner diameter of each of the annular patterns is greater than or equal to a width of each of the light-emitting elements” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein an inner diameter of each of the annular patterns is greater than or equal to a width of each of the light-emitting elements” is significant. Thus, the claimed limitation of “wherein an inner diameter of each of the annular patterns is greater than or equal to a width of each of the light-emitting elements” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein an inner diameter of each of the annular patterns is greater than or equal to a width of each of the light-emitting elements” is not patentable over Akusta.
Regarding claim 17, Akusta teaches all of the features of claim 16.
Akusta further teaches wherein the isolation structure layer ({24, 25}; Fig. 3 in view of Fig. 12; see [0110, 0117]) and the circuit substrate ({1, 2}; Fig. 3 in view of Figs. 1A-1B, 2; [0034]) (see below for “have a slope and a surface defining each of the grooves, and an included angle between the slope and a normal direction of the surface is greater than or equal to 30 degrees and less than or equal to 60 degrees”).
As noted above, Akusta does not expressly disclose “wherein the isolation structure layer and the circuit substrate have a slope and a surface defining each of the grooves, and an included angle between the slope and a normal direction of the surface is greater than or equal to 30 degrees and less than or equal to 60 degrees”.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the isolation structure layer and the circuit substrate have a slope and a surface defining each of the grooves, and an included angle between the slope and a normal direction of the surface is greater than or equal to 30 degrees and less than or equal to 60 degrees” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without wherein the isolation structure layer and the circuit substrate have a slope and a surface defining each of the grooves, and an included angle between the slope and a normal direction of the surface is greater than or equal to 30 degrees and less than or equal to 60 degrees). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein the isolation structure layer and the circuit substrate have a slope and a surface defining each of the grooves, and an included angle between the slope and a normal direction of the surface is greater than or equal to 30 degrees and less than or equal to 60 degrees” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “wherein the isolation structure layer and the circuit substrate have a slope and a surface defining each of the grooves, and an included angle between the slope and a normal direction of the surface is greater than or equal to 30 degrees and less than or equal to 60 degrees”. Thus, the claimed “wherein the isolation structure layer and the circuit substrate have a slope and a surface defining each of the grooves, and an included angle between the slope and a normal direction of the surface is greater than or equal to 30 degrees and less than or equal to 60 degrees” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein the isolation structure layer and the circuit substrate have a slope and a surface defining each of the grooves, and an included angle between the slope and a normal direction of the surface is greater than or equal to 30 degrees and less than or equal to 60 degrees” is significant. Thus, the claimed limitation of “wherein the isolation structure layer and the circuit substrate have a slope and a surface defining each of the grooves, and an included angle between the slope and a normal direction of the surface is greater than or equal to 30 degrees and less than or equal to 60 degrees” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein the isolation structure layer and the circuit substrate have a slope and a surface defining each of the grooves, and an included angle between the slope and a normal direction of the surface is greater than or equal to 30 degrees and less than or equal to 60 degrees” is not patentable over Akusta.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Omar Mojaddedi whose telephone number is 313-446-6582. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m..
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, Julio J. Maldonado, can be reached on 571-272-1864. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMAR F MOJADDEDI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights