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 § 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 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.
Claim 1 refers to a “catalyst activation step” in which a plasma treatment is performed on the substrate. However, the steps for crosslinking and development form a selective cross-linking layer onto which the electroless plating is performed. Electroless plating usually requires a catalyst or seed layer and it would make sense for the catalyst activation to be performed on areas to be electrolessly plated. However, the current claim language requires activating catalyst “on the substrate” indicating the electroless plating will occur on the substrate where catalyst is activated (in contrast to the selective cross-linking layer).
The language for the catalyst activation step is further an issue because the language is not related to any other step in the process. The claim could be referring to a catalyst layer on the substrate that facilitated electroless plating while the selective cross-linking layer is used as a mask (for plating and/or application of catalyst/seed). In fact, the depending claims 2 and 3 refer to a palladium compound without reference to the catalyst. The catalyst and the palladium compound can therefore be two separate things.
Based upon the specification the palladium is the catalyst and is incorporated into the selective cross-linking layer to facilitate the electroless plating, while plasma treatment of the substrate can help clean the substrate. However, as noted above, the catalyst activation step is required to be activating catalyst on the substrate. The contradiction of specification and claims results in uncertainty when, “a claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain” MPEP 2173.03.
In this instance, the catalyst activation step should be performed on the selective cross-linking layer. Alternatively, the catalyst activation step could be performed on the entire workpiece (activating the catalyst and cleaning the substrate) if it was clear that the catalyst was present in the selective cross-linking layer. It would also be helpful to identify the palladium compound in later claims to the catalyst.
Claim 1 also refers to “a selective cross-linking layer formation step” but requires the step to be a sintering through laser irradiation. The current language has a cross-linking layer but does not require any active crosslinking to occur. Applicant is allowed to be their own lexicographer but this language is unclear because sintering has a particular meaning in the art and applicant has not expressly redefined the term. In fact, applicant refers to a nanoparticle thin film layer formed from metal nanoparticles coated with organic material that is “sintered” to remove organics and connect the metal particles together Specification, page 13. The term “sintering” is generally not used in the context of facilitating a cross-linking because it often removes organics (polymers). Applicant may be referring to a laser heat treatment that causes cross-linking (as distinguished from a photosensitive crosslinker activated by a laser).
Claim 8 has similar issues to claim 1 and further requires the sintering to form a PVP-Pd cross-linking layer. However, claim 1 does not include any palladium (Pd). Accordingly, it is not clear if the laser treatment forms the PVP-Pd layer or if it is “eventually” formed in a later step when Pd is added.
Claim 7 further describes the “selective cross-linking layer” but still does not require any polymer chains to be crosslinked. Claim 7 requires the cross-linking to cleave chains into shorter chains, and “then
Depending claims incorporate the issues of the parent claim and are rejected.
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, 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) 1, 5-9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIBATA et al (JP2008224916; citations to machine translation) in view of BRUNET et al. (US 2005/0233593).
Regarding claims 1 and 5,
SHIBATA teaches a method of applying a silver halide photosensitive material as an emulsion onto a transparent support (substrate), exposed and developed Best Mode step (A), pages 2-3. The deposited material is exposed to plating and palladium can be used instead of silver when doing electroless plating page 11. The binder for the emulsion (solution) includes polyvinyl pyrrolidone (PVP) which is water-soluble with crosslinking agent if needed page 4. A layer of the emulsion is coated onto a substrate by dip coating or spray coating page 5. After coating, the layer is exposed to a laser, such as blue semiconductor laser, and fixed/developed page 5. The materials not irradiated can be removed by an aqueous solution page 6. Irradiated parts are considered to be selectively formed and crosslinked by laser “sintering” because the same polymer is exposed to the same laser irradiation.
SHIBATA teaches forming a patterned seed layer for electroless plating from an emulsion of palladium and binder but does not expressly teach a catalyst activation step. However, BRUNET teaches that when using a photoresist with palladium for electroless plating a plasma etch/desmear can be done to expose more of the palladium chloride abstract which is considered an activating step. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to include a plasma activation step such as a desmearing step to ensure exposure of the catalytic particles in SHIBATA for electroless plating.
Regarding claim 6,
The support (substrate) in SHIBATA is transparent and can be a resin such as PET and PEN (polymer material) page 3.
Regarding claims 7 and 8,
SHIBATA teaches the same substrate, PVP polymer and blue laser. Therefore it is reasonable to expect the same breakage of chains and “sintering” to occur.
Regarding claim 9,
The blue semiconductor laser is a solid laser.
Regarding claim 13,
SHIBATA teaches the electroless plating can be copper or nickel page 11.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIBATA et al (JP2008224916; citations to machine translation) in view of BRUNET et al. (US 2005/0233593) further in view of ROLKER et al. (US 3,900,320).
Regarding claims 2-4,
SHIBATA teaches the palladium used in the solution/emulsion can be divalent palladium salt page 11. SHIBATA is silent to using ethanol as a solvent and particular palladium compounds. However, ROLKER teaches that palladium chloride is a catalyst for electroless plating and can be mixed with binder material and solvent abstract. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use palladium chloride as the divalent palladium salt of SHIBATA as a known catalyst material for electroless plating.
ROLKER further teaches that water and ethanol are both common solvents that can be used, column 6 lines 21-44. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to use ethanol as a solvent as an art recognized equivalent solvent for water soluble materials.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIBATA et al (JP2008224916; citations to machine translation) in view of BRUNET et al. (US 2005/0233593) further in view of WATANABE et al. (US 2015/0239217).
Regarding claim 10 and 11,
SHIBATA teaches removing the water soluble material not irradiated (crosslinked) by washing with water but does not expressly teach an immersion step of 1 to 2 minutes or ultrasonic cleaning. However, WATANABE teaches that when removing water-soluble resist with water an ultrasound (immersed in a bath) can be used [0085]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to develop the unexposed polymer by known techniques including immersion in an ultrasonic bath. The references still do not teach the particular duration of immersion. However, the duration of ultrasonication is understood to be a result effective variable. The longer the substrate is in the ultrasonic bath, the more material is removed. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to find a workable duration for immersion in the ultrasonic bath that produces a satisfactorily developed substrate in the shortest time to improve throughput.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571272-1418. 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.
/AUSTIN MURATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712