DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/30/26 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-2, 16-18, 23-29, 74-91 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cok et al (US Publication 20200357677).
As to claims 1, 2, 74-76, Cok discloses a printed structure comprises a target substrate and a structures protruding form a surface of the target substrate. Cok discloses that multiple structures and multiple components can be provided on the substrate. The spatial distribution of any one or more of the structures is a matter of design choice for the end product desired (paragraph 74). A component comprising a component substrate is disposed in alignment with the structures on the surface of the target substrate within 1 micron of the structure that is non-native to the target substrate (abs). Cok further discloses that the structure can be disposed on the surface of the target substrate and that the components and structures can be touching or have a separated from each other (paragraphs 39-40 and 47). Cok discloses that the structure can be formed from native printable components or can be from non-native material (paragraph 39). Cok is silent to the specifics of the printed structures, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Cok and formed the structure of claim 1 because Cok allows for an overlapping structure. Cok discloses that the structure can be native to the substrate as they are formed with the substrate and the component can be non-native to the target substrate. The structures can be spatially separated from and independent from any of the other structures or comprise multiple spatially separated lateral protrusions wherein the component contacts/disposed within 1 micron of two or more of the structures because it would be an obvious design choice as Cok notes that the spatial distribution of any one or more of the structures/components is a matter of design choice for the end product desired (paragraph 74).
As to claim 16, Cok discloses the structure comprises a first structure having a first edge and a second structure having a second edge, the first structure edge is at a non-orthogonal angle with respect to the second structure edge and the first component edge is substantially parallel to the first structure edge (fig 10).
As to claim 17, Cok discloses that adhesive can be used to adhere the component to the target substrate (paragraph 14).
As to claims 18, Cok discloses that the component has a longer side and a short side, wherein the component is adjacent to the structure on the longer side (fig 4).
As to claim 23, Cok discloses that one or more of the structures can be disposed on the substate. Further that the spatial distribution of any one or more of the structures is a matter of design choice for the end product desired (paragraph 74) and that the structures are used for alignment of the component. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Cok and formed the structure of claim 23 as being an obvious design choice.
As to claims 24 and 83, Cok discloses the component comprises a broken or separated tether that is disposed between the structure (paragraph 47).
As to claim 25, Cok discloses that the structures can be disposed with a gap between the structure and the component and wherein the gap is 1 micron or less (paragraph 47).
As to claims 26-28, Cok discloses that an adhesive is disposed between the component and the structure to fill any gap that would otherwise exist and has a thickness greater than the thickness of the adhesive between the component and the target substrate or structures (figures).
As to claim 29, Cok discloses that the component has a cut-off corner that defines the gap (figures). The faces can be planar, or non planar such as curved or non-flat shaped.
As to claims 77, 78, Cok discloses a printed structure comprises a target substrate and a structures protruding form a surface of the target substrate. Cok discloses that multiple structures and multiple components can be provided on the substrate. A component comprising a component substrate is disposed in alignment with the structures on the surface of the target substrate within 1 micron of the structure that is non-native to the target substrate (abs). Cok further discloses that the structure can be disposed on the surface of the target substrate and that the components and structures can be touching or have a separated from each other (paragraphs 39-40 and 47). The spatial distribution of any one or more of the structures/components is a matter of design choice for the end product desired (paragraph 74). Cok is silent to the specifics of the printed structures, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Cok and formed the structure of claim 77 as each of the components and structure have an edge with a gap existing between the structures. Cok further discloses that the structures and components can have edges or faces with protrusions, shapes, indentations, and patterns and therefore forming the component with cut off edges would be a design choice and depending upon the desired end use can have the claimed structure of claims 77 and 78.
As to claim 79, Cok discloses that the component can physically contact the structure 20.
As to claims 80 and 81, Cok discloses that the adhesive can be disposed in a pattern or all over the target substrate and that the structure can be disposed on the adhesive. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the adhesive formed between ones of the structure.
As to claim 82, Cok discloses that this is a micro-transfer printed component.
As to claim 84, Cok discloses that the spatial distribution of any one or more of the structures/components is a matter of design choice for the end product desired (paragraph 74). Cok is silent to the specifics of the printed structures, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Cok and formed the structure of claim 84 as each of the this would be an end product design choice.
As to claims 85 and 86, Cok discloses that the structure and component can comprise an optical component (paragraph 38).
As to claim 87, Cok discloses a printed structure comprises a target substrate and a structures protruding form a surface of the target substrate. Cok discloses that multiple structures and multiple components can be provided on the substrate. The spatial distribution of any one or more of the structures is a matter of design choice for the end product desired (paragraph 74). A component comprising a component substrate is disposed in alignment with the structures on the surface of the target substrate within 1 micron of the structure that is non-native to the target substrate (abs). Cok discloses the component comprises a broken or separated tether that is disposed between the structure (paragraph 47). Cok is silent to the specifics of the printed structures, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Cok and formed the structure of claim 87 because Cok allows for an overlapping structure. The structures can be spatially separated from and independent from any of the other structures or comprise multiple spatially separated lateral protrusions wherein the component contacts/disposed within 1 micron of two or more of the structures because it would be an obvious design choice as Cok notes that the spatial distribution of any one or more of the structures/components is a matter of design choice for the end product desired (paragraph 74).
As to claims 88 and 89, Cok discloses a printed structure comprises a target substrate and a structures protruding form a surface of the target substrate. Cok discloses that multiple structures and multiple components can be provided on the substrate. The spatial distribution of any one or more of the structures is a matter of design choice for the end product desired (paragraph 74). A component comprising a component substrate is disposed in alignment with the structures on the surface of the target substrate within 1 micron of the structure that is non-native to the target substrate (abs). Cok discloses an adhesive can be applied to the target substrate in a pattern or all over the substrate. Cok is silent to the specifics of the printed structures, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Cok and formed the structure of claim 88 because Cok allows for an overlapping structure. The structures can be spatially separated from and independent from any of the other structures or comprise multiple spatially separated lateral protrusions wherein the adhesive is between the component and target substrate and not between the structures and target substrate and laterally between one of the structures because it would be an obvious design choice as Cok notes that the spatial distribution of any one or more of the structures/components is a matter of design choice for the end product desired as well as to forming the adhesive in a pattern on the target substrate(paragraph 74).
As to claims 90 and 91, Cok discloses a printed structure comprises a target substrate and a structures protruding form a surface of the target substrate. Cok discloses that multiple structures and multiple components can be provided on the substrate. The spatial distribution of any one or more of the structures is a matter of design choice for the end product desired (paragraph 74). A component comprising a component substrate is disposed in alignment with the structures on the surface of the target substrate within 1 micron of the structure that is non-native to the target substrate (abs). Cok discloses that the spatial distribution of any one or more of the structures/components is a matter of design choice for the end product desired (paragraph 74). Cok is silent to the specifics of the printed structures, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Cok and formed the structure of claims 90 and 91 as each of the this would be an end product design choice.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cok et al (US Publication 20200357677) in view of Gomez et al (US Publication 20200176670).
As to claims 3 and 4, Cok renders obvious claim 1 for the reasons noted above, however is silent to a cavity.
Gomez discloses a patterned substrate and a component, wherein a cavity is formed within the target substrate and the cavity comprises a bottom and walls that has non-native structures within the cavity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Cok and formed the target substrate to have a cavity as it would be a suitable alternative/design choice as both Gomez and Cok are both used for the same purposes.
Claims 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cok et al (US Publication 20200357677) in view of Morikawa et al (US Publication 20060034570).
As to claims 30-33, Cok renders obvious claim 1 for the reasons noted above, however is silent to the printed structure comprising a gutter formed in the target substrate. Cok discloses that the adhesive is disposed on the surface between the component and the surface.
Morikawa discloses a printed structure comprising a target substrate having grooves (gutter) disposed within the target substrate and a component. An adhesive is located within the gutter and adheres the component to the target substrate and that the grooves have a depth of at least 50 microns.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have modified Cok and formed the target substrate with a grooves as it would be a suitable alternative to that of Cok as well as the grooves allow for better adhesion of the adhesion of the component and substrate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argue that claim 1 and 77 are not obvious over Cok because Cok does not teach multiple independent spatially separated structures. The examiner respectfully disagrees and argues that Cok discloses multiple structures on the target substrate with multiple components. Cok discloses that the spatial distribution of any one or more of the structures/components is a matter of design choice for the end product desired (paragraph 74). Further the structures can be formed as an array and therefore considered to be separate lateral protrusions. Therefore it would have been obvious to form these multiple structures that are sperate and independent as Cok notes this is a matter of design choice. Further as to the faces of the structures/components can have a complementary shape/size depending upon the end use.
As to claim 16, Cok discloses that the spatial distribution of any one or more of the structures/components is a matter of design choice for the end product desired (paragraph 74).
As to claim 29, Cok discloses the components can have may shapes and further in fig 11b, the shape can be considered cut off. Further as to the faces of the structures/components can have a complementary shape/size depending upon the end use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8am till 4:30 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 5712721291. 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 M POLLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights