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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim 12 is 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.
In claim 12, the limitation “the mounting substrate” lacks proper antecedent basis.
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, 2 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wimplinger (US 2015/0303082).
As to claims 1 and 11, Wimplinger discloses an element array manufacturing apparatus comprising the pressing device comprising an element array pressing device (fig 2a, 3a-3c) comprising a press plate 9 comprising a first surface 9o that is flat (fig 3a-3c); and a pressing part comprising a hard member 2 (para 41-45, fig 3a-c) that is plate-shaped and that has a second surface 1u’ that is flat and with a higher surface flatness than the first surface (para 12-13), wherein the pressing part is configured to apply pressure to an element array having a plurality of elements on a mounting substrate 12 (para 12-14, 25-35, 41-71).
As to claim 2, Wimplinger discloses the element array pressing wherein the hard member is on the first surface (fig 3a-3c)
As to claims 9-10, Wimplinger discloses a hard member clamped with a clamping member 8/8”/8’ clamped to the press plate in a detachable manner (para 31, 34, 35, 41-45, figs 3a-3c).
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) 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wimplinger as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Matsumura (US 2009/0314437).
As to claim 3, Wimplinger discloses a resilient member 6’ that is plate shaped 6/6’. Wimplinger discloses the resilient member is placed on the surface opposite the second surface of the hard member (figs 3a-3b, para12-14, 25-35 41-71). Matsumura discloses the pressing part comprises a resilient member 32 in a plate shape, and the resilient member is provided on the second surface of the hard member (figs 4a-4c, para 78-87). When placing the resilient member, there are only a finite number of choices - the member either goes on the second surface or the surface opposite the second surface. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the device of Wimplinger such that the resilient member is provided on the second surface of the hard member as taught by Matsumura above as such has a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claims 6, Matsumura discloses a first water repelling layer 32, on the second surface of the hard member (para 140 – rubber 32 can be silicone rubber).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wimplinger, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kobayashi (US 2012/0247664).
As to claim 12, Wimplinger discloses a mounting table 10 on which the mounting substrate is placed (fig 3a-3c para 45-71), wherein the press plate applies pressure to the element array having the plurality of elements that are capable of being transferred to the mounting substrate with a transfer machine (fig 3a-3c para 45-71)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Wimplinger by providing a supply table on which a supply substrate having a plurality of elements can be placed, a transferring machine which is capable of moving to the supply table to pick up the plurality of elements from the supply substrate and also move to the mounting table to transfer the plurality of elements picked up from the supply substrate to the mounting substrate to be pressed as taught by Kobayashi above as such increases production efficiency (para 122).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/6/25 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6038. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9-6.
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 Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746