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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-13, 15 in the reply filed on 12/16/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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 1-13, 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.
The limitation of “…that washes the major surface of the substrate to the major surface of the substrate…” is vague. For the purpose of examination, it is understood as the rinsing liquid washes a major surface of the substrate.
Claims 2-13 and 15 are rejected for depending on rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Lennon et al. (US 2012/0196444), referred as Lennon ‘444.
With respect to claim 1, Lennon ‘444 describes a process comprising: providing a substrate having a surface or major surface on which a silicon dioxide layer 104 is exposed (fig. 1B; para 96) so that a polymer 106 containing an acid polymer such as polyacrylic acid polymer layer is deposited thereon (fig. 1B; para 96, 97)
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
; performing an etching of the silicon dioxide 104 on the substrate (para 111, 112); washing the substrate with water after the etching or claimed a first rinsing to wash a major surface of the substrate (para 113).
With respect to claim 3, the polymer layer comprises of acidic polymers such as polythiophene or polyaniline derivatives (para 97), which are the same claimed electroconductive polymers cited in para 84 of the specification.
With respect to claim 4, the etching removes at least a portion of the silicon dioxide by applying a continuous or drop-on-demand deposition method of the acidic polymer which provides a source of protons for the etching reaction (para 97). The washing in water remove the polymer and etching residue from the substrate surface (para 113).
With respect to claim 7, Lennon ‘444 describes supplying a solution comprising 25% w/v water soluble acidic polymer by spin-coating, which would contain a solvent such as water as the rest of the solution (para 97) and heated to a temperature in a range of 45-55 degrees C to evaporate solvent (para 99). This solution would contain a solvent, which is expected to be at least water, and evaporated by the heat.
With respect to claim 13, the polyacrylic acid polymer, acidic polythiophene or polyaniline derivatives, polystyrene sulfonate, polyester or phenolic resins (para 97) would provide claimed the first acid polymer is a carboxyl-containing polymer, a sulfo-containing polymer or a mixture of these polymers.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Lennon et al. (2011/0111599), referred as Lennon ‘599.
With respect to claim 1, Lennon ‘599 describes a process comprising: providing a substrate having a surface or major surface on which a oxide material to be etched such as a silicon dioxide layer 110 is exposed (fig. 1A; para 26, 58) so that a polymer 115 containing an acid polymer such as polyacrylic acid polymer layer is deposited thereon (fig. 1B; para 60);
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
; performing an etching of the silicon dioxide on the substrate (para 64, 65); washing the substrate with water after the etching or claimed a first rinsing to wash a major surface of the substrate (para 80).
With respect to claim 3, the polymer layer comprises of acidic polymers such as acidic polythiophene or polyaniline derivatives (para 62), which are the same claimed electroconductive polymers cited in para 84 of the specification.
With respect to claim 4, the etching removes at least a portion of the silicon dioxide by spin-coating the acidic polymer, which provides a source of protons for the etching reaction (para 53, 55, 64). The washing in water remove the polymer and etching residue from the substrate surface (para 80, 81).
With respect to claim 7, Lennon ‘599 describes supplying a solution comprising water or solvent and acidic polymer by spin-coating and the method further comprises heating the platen to a temperature in a range of 45 degrees C to evaporate solvent, which would include water in the polymer-forming containing liquid on the surface (para 60, 64, 70, 78).
With respect to claim 13, acidic polymers comprises a mixture of polyacrylic acid polymer, acidic polythiophene or polyaniline derivatives, polystyrene sulfonate, polyester or phenolic resins (para 62) would provide claimed the first acid polymer is a carboxyl-containing polymer, a sulfo-containing polymer or a mixture of these polymers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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.
Claim(s) 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lennon ‘444 as applied to claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 5, even though Lennon ‘444 doesn’t teach repeating all the steps cited in his process including depositing a polymer, etching, and rinsing; however, it would have been obvious and within the knowledge of one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to repeat these steps because, depending on a thickness of the etched oxide material, it would enable one skilled in the art to remove a desired amount of oxide material from the substrate with expected results.
With respect to claim 6, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to remove the first rinsing liquid from the substrate before performing the next depositing of the acidic polymer layer because it would provide a clean surface without any rinsing liquid that might interfere with the quality of the deposited acidic polymer layer.
Claim(s) 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lennon ‘599 as applied to claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 5, even though Lennon ‘599 doesn’t teach repeating all the steps cited in his process including depositing a polymer, etching, and rinsing; however, it would have been obvious and within the knowledge of one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to repeat these steps because, depending on a thickness of the etched oxide material, it would enable one skilled in the art to remove a desired amount of oxide material from the substrate with expected results.
With respect to claim 6, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to remove the first rinsing liquid from the substrate before performing the next depositing of the acidic polymer layer because it would provide a clean surface without any rinsing liquid that might interfere with the quality of the deposited acidic polymer layer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 8-12, 15 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.
Claim 2 is allowable because the applied prior art Lennon ‘599 and Lennon ‘444 while teach providing an acidic polymer layer on the surface; however, fail to disclose that the first polymer film contains a first alkali component and the first etching includes a first etching start of starting etching the substrate by heating the first polymer film and evaporating the first alkali component from the first polymer film after the first polymer film is formed.
Claim 8 and its dependent claims 9-12, 15 are allowable because the applied prior art Lennon ‘599 and Lennon ‘444 while teach providing an acidic polymer layer on the surface; however, fail to teach oxidizing the major surface of the substrate after the rinsing by applying oxidation treatment in combination with other steps of claims 8 and its independent claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY VU NGUYEN DEO whose telephone number is (571)272-1462. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 M-F.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-272-3176. 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.
/DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
1/16/2026