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 without traverse of Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-7, 9, 12, 14 and 20 in the reply filed on 10/23/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 25-28, 30, 33-34, 36-38 and 40 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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) 1-2, 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uefune et al. (US 2008/0068745 A1) in view of Sambasivan et al. (US 2016/0243545 A1)
As to claims 1 and 20, Uefune teaches a workpiece processing method comprising: applying a low surface energy solution on a surface of the workpiece, allowing the low surface energy solution to impregnate into a channel in the workpiece (para 0039); removing the solvent from the low surface energy solution to remain the filler material in the channel to hermetically seal the channel (paras 0013, 0039-0046). Uefune does not explicitly teach that the low surface energy solution includes a carrier solvent and a filler material dissolved in the carrier solvent.
Sambasivan is in the same field of endeavor of sealing channels and dips a workpiece (para 0052) into a solution including the sealing material and a solvent (para 0008-0015) where the removal of the solvent promotes the adhesion of the sealing material into the channels. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Uefune to include using a solvent as taught by Sambasivan in order to better adhere the sealing material to the channels and get a better hermetic seal.
As to claim 2, the filler material is a polymer selected from at least one of a fluorinated resin, fluorinated silane, fluorinated acrylate and a fluorinated monomer (Uefune para 0042)
As to claim 9, applying the low surface energy solution on the workpiece includes immersing the workpiece into the low surface energy solution, and wherein the low surface energy solution is under atmospheric pressure (Uefune para 0041).
Claim(s) 4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uefune et al. (US 2008/0068745 A1) in view of Sambasivan et al. (US 2016/0243545 A1) and in further view of Azuma (JP S-6139953 A)
Uefune and Sambasivan do not explicitly teach the cleaning process. Azuma teaches ultrasonic cleaning using a solvent and ultrasonic wave generator then using vapor in order to clean the workpiece thoroughly and not form pinholes (abstract). Therefore , it would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify Uefune and Sambasivan to include the cleaning process and taught by Azuma in order to clean the workpiece thoroughly and not form pinholes.
Claim(s) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uefune et al. (US 2008/0068745 A1) in view of Sambasivan et al. (US 2016/0243545 A1) and in further view of CN 106811114 A.
As to claim 12, Uefune and Sambasivan do not explicitly teach ultrasonic treatment during application of the solution. CN 106811114 teaches this in its Examples to properly disperse the solution materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify Uefune and Sambasivan to include ultrasonic dispersion during coating as taught by CN 106811114 A to properly disperse the solution during coating.
As to claim 14, Uefune and Sambasivan do not explicitly teach a tilted substrate during dipping. CN 106811114 teaches a similar coating method and shows a tilted substrate in Figs. 3-4. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify Uefune and Sambasivan to include tilting the substrate during dipping as taught by CN 106811114 A as CN 106811114 A teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY M GAMBETTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
KELLY M. GAMBETTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1715
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715