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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0301739 A1 (Chen).
Chen discloses, referring primarily to figures 7A-7H, a transparent flexible substrate comprising: an optically transparent cyclo-olefin polymer flexible substrate (130; [0053]); an optically transparent dielectric bonding film (140; [0054]) on said cyclo-olefin polymer surface; a monolayer graphene circuitry (122; [0044]) on said bonding film; copper traces (112, 116; [0041]) on said bonding film and electrically connected to said graphene circuitry at edges of a transparent area; and a layer of transparent permanent resist (140, 160; [0054], [0076]) on top of said graphene circuitry and portions of said copper traces [claim 1].
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.
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(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of US 2022/0312594 A1 (Park).
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses the claimed invention as described above with respect to claim 1 and including that said cyclo-olefin polymer flexible substrate has a thickness of 12.5 to 100 μm ([0014]). Chen does not specifically state that the cyclo-olefin polymer flexible substrate has a dielectric constant of <2.3 [claim 2]. However, such a dielectric constant is well known in the art as evidenced by Park ([0040]-[0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to incorporate the claimed features in the invention of Chen. The motivation for doing so would have been provide the device with the required electrical characteristics.
Regarding claim 3, Chen discloses the claimed invention as described above with respect to claim 1 and including wherein said dielectric bonding film comprises adhesive film reinforced with fibers, chosen from the group containing: epoxy, cyanide ester, acrylic adhesive, and modified polyimide (MPI) with epoxy ([0055]) and wherein said bonding film has a thickness of 15 to 50 µm ([0018]). Chen does not specifically disclose that the dielectric bonding film has a dielectric constant of 2 to 2.6 [claim 3]. However, such a dielectric constant is well known in the art as evidenced by Park ([0040]-[0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to incorporate the claimed features in the invention of Chen. The motivation for doing so would have been provide the device with the required electrical characteristics.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen.
Chen discloses the claimed invention as described above with respect to claim 1 and including that said monolayer graphene circuitry has a thickness range of 2 to 10 nm ([0052]). Chen does not specifically state that the monolayer graphene circuitry has a fine line/space circuit formation down to 2/2 µm. However, such a modification would amount to a mere change in size of the existing parts of the invention of Chen, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan (MPEP 2144). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to incorporate the claimed features into the invention of Chen. The motivation for doing so would have been to meet required wiring density.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-19 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 5-12 state the limitation “thereafter etching said first graphene layer using patterned said first transparent permanent resist as an etching mask to form first graphene circuitry on said first bonding film.” This limitation, in conjunction with the other claimed features, was neither found to be disclosed in, nor suggested by the prior art. Claims 13-15 state the limitation “thereafter etching first and second said graphene layers using patterned said first and second transparent permanent resist as etching masks to form first graphene circuitry on said first bonding film and second graphene circuitry on said second bonding film.” This limitation, in conjunction with the other claimed features, was neither found to be disclosed in, nor suggested by the prior art. Claims 16-19 state the limitation “wherein said first copper traces are connected to said second copper traces through copper filling via openings through all layers between said first and second copper traces; and a first layer of transparent permanent resist on top of said first graphene circuitry and portions of said first copper traces and a second layer of transparent permanent resist on top of said second graphene circuitry and portions of said second copper traces.” This limitation, in conjunction with the other claimed features, was neither found to be disclosed in, nor suggested by the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY C NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1932. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15-15:15 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, Timothy Thompson can be reached at (571)272-2342. 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.
JEREMY C. NORRIS
Examiner
Art Unit 2847
/JEREMY C NORRIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847