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
Claims 10-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected embodiment in the reply filed on 04/23/2026.
Including claim 10 is a typographical error. It is directed to a different embodiment where the protective plate is moved such as at least in method of Fig 10 and Fig 14A-B rather than peeling in Fig. 3, Fig. 4D and 5C-G
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 09/14/2023, 04/08/2024, 06/12/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the foreign application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Three priority document exchange attempts by the United States Patent and Trademark Office have failed as noted in the prosecution of the present application.
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 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tokushima (WO 2013022112).
Regarding claim 1, Tokushima discloses a method of manufacturing a substrate, the method comprising:
attaching a protective film (3)
the photosensitive film 3 is stuck on the upper surface of the support pattern 2 (FIG. 1B).
having an adhesive layer formed on one surface thereof onto the substrate (2)
In order to easily and accurately form the support pattern 2 with a thickness of several tens of μm to several hundreds of μm, a high-viscosity liquid resist is used, or a photosensitive film (also called a dry film) is used.
providing an etchant onto the substrate to which the protective film is attached;
Subsequently, the substrate 1 is dry-etched using the stencil pattern 7 to form a slope 101c (FIG. 1E).
These steps forming a first flat part (101a), an inclined part (101c), and a second flat part (101b)
The overall structure is considered formed by removing portions of protective film (3), considered peeling off an end of the protective film (3) See Fig 1 step (c) to Fig 1 step (d) and thus changing a reaction surface area between the etchant and the substrate;
If both the support pattern 2 and the ridge pattern 301 are photosensitive films, they can be removed simultaneously using an organic solvent or a mixed solution of sulfuric acid and hydrogen peroxide.
Thus finally and then removing the protective film yielding Fig 1 (f).
Regarding claim 3, the protective film is acid resistant as the etchant is fluorine-based gas.
silicon is dry-etched with a plasma of a fluorine-based gas, both fluorine-containing ions and fluorine-containing radicals generated in the plasma can be etching species.
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.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokushima (WO 2013022112) as applied above and further in view of Ohuchida (US 20230377850).
Regarding claims 4-5, Tokushima is silent as to the etching apparatus and step.
In an analogous art of etching a substrate Ohuchida discloses etching a substrate with a fluoride spray of (at least abstract) where the etching processing unit Fig 1, with a support portion (11) [0035] and a flow modulation controller (22) to control the flow rate of the etching gas and the supply to the gas source (21) thus considered the direction given the broadest reasonable interpretation [0041].
Where Tokushima is silent as to the etching device it would be obvious to look to the available in the art to find a suitable etching device to carry out the method steps taught by Tokushima.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 6-9 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.
None of the prior art of record discloses the limitation of claim 2 of controlling spacing speed of the end of the protective film is controlled according to an adhesive force of the adhesive layer or the gripping part configured and controlled as recited in claims 6-7 and no peeler controlling or controller as recited in claims 8-9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JODI COHEN FRANKLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3966. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am-4 pm.
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, Alison Hindelang can be reached at (571) 270-7001. 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.
JODI COHEN FRANKLIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights