CTNF 18/024,381 CTNF 99011 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-2 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi Murashige of US 2015/0367621 A1 (hereinafter, Murashige) in view of Tomoji Kokusho of JP 2016166120 A (hereinafter, Kokusho) . As to claim 1 , Murashige teaches to a method for dividing a material including a brittle material layer and a resin layer that are laminated together, the method comprising: a resin removing step of applying laser light oscillated from a laser light source (Murashige, paragraph [0050], Fig.1, teaches to using a laser light source, such as a CO laser in which the laser oscillates simultaneously across multiple vibrational and rotational transitions, for dividing a glass-resin composite, or the laminate 100) to the resin layer (Murashige, paragraph [0027], teaches to a thermoplastic resin as a preferred resin constituting the resin layer) along a planned division line of the composite material to remove resin that partly forms the resin layer, so that a processed groove is formed along the planned division line (Murashige, paragraph [0007], teaches to the method of producing a flexible film which includes the steps of forming a groove from an outer surface side of the resin layer and cutting the laminate along the groove; during this process, a planned division line is an abstract line where both the formed groove exists along the laser treated path; see line B in Fig. 2(a), (b), or (c); also during this process, resin is necessarily removed; see width a in Fig. 2(a), (b), or (c)) . Murashige does not explicitly teach a brittle material removing step of applying, after the resin removing step , laser light oscillated from an ultrashort pulsed laser light source to the brittle material layer along the planned division line to remove brittle material that partly forms the brittle material layer, so that processed marks are formed along the planned division line, wherein the processed marks formed in the brittle material removing step open on the resin layer side and do not penetrate through the brittle material layer. In an analogous art, Kokusho teaches to a brittle material removing step of applying, after the resin removing step , laser light oscillated from an ultrashort pulsed laser light source to the brittle material layer along the planned division line to remove brittle material that partly forms the brittle material layer (Kokusho, paragraphs [0007] and [0012], Figs. 1-2, teaches to a first step in which a laser light is irradiated to remove a resin that partly forms in the resin layer 12; Kokusho, paragraph [0013], Figs. 1-2, teaches to a second step in which a pulsed laser light is irradiated to remove a glass material that partly forms the glass substrate 11; Kokusho, paragraph [0027], teaches toa an ultrashort pulsed laser light source because Kokusho teaches to pulse width of 50 picoseconds, for instance) , so that processed marks are formed along the planned division line, wherein the processed marks formed in the brittle material removing step open on the resin layer side and do not penetrate through the brittle material layer (Kokusho, Figs. 1-2, teaches to laminated substrate G, wherein the laminated substrate G comprises the resin layer 12 on top of glass substrate 11; the modified area R and an initial crack C are formed along the planned separation line ‘d’ (see Kokusho, paragraph [0022]), forming a crack, or a cavity is read as removing brittle material that partly forms the brittle material layer; the initial crack C is open on the resin layer side) . Both Murashige and Kokusho relate to using lasers in separating and/or cutting laminated substrate (Kokusho, paragraph [0022]). Murashige does not explicitly teach applying an ultrashort pulsed laser to remove brittle material layer. Murashige does teach to applying a laser to remove a resin layer and forming a groove in the resin layer. Kokusho teaches to the first step of applying laser to remove a resin layer for forming a groove and the subsequent second step of applying laser to remove a brittle material forming a mark for preparing more efficient and cleaner cleavage or separation of laminated substrates. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the groove forming method of Murashige with the crack forming method of Kokusho for forming a groove and the subsequent second step of applying laser to remove a brittle material forming a mark for preparing more efficient and cleaner cleavage or separation of laminated substrates. As to claim 2 , Murashige in view of Kokusho does not explicitly teach wherein in the brittle material removing step, a depth of the processed marks is adjusted by adjusting a power of the laser light oscillated from the ultrashort pulsed laser light source and by adjusting a positional relationship between the brittle material layer and a focus of the laser light oscillated from the ultrashort pulsed laser light source. Murashige in view of Kokusho, however, does teach to adjusting a power of the laser light oscillated from the ultrashort pulsed laser light source and by adjusting a positional relationship between the brittle material layer and a focus of the laser light oscillated from the ultrashort pulsed laser light source (Murashige, paragraph [0051], teaches that any appropriate conditions can be adopted as conditions for irradiations with the laser light (an output condition, a moving speed, and the number of times) depending on, for example, the kind of the resin constituting the resin layer and the depth of the groove). Here, a depth of the processed mark is a variable that results from routine optimization of a result-effective variable. Achieving an optimal depth of the processed mark results in increased efficiency of the cleaving the laminated substrate and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust accordingly. For instance, having excessively deep depth would comprise edge quality of the separated laminated substrate, causing premature breaking or damage to underlying layers. On the other hand, having negligibly shallow depth would lead to undesirable rough edges that does not provide clean crack along the planned division line and would require increased mechanical forces to separate the laminated substrate. There is insufficient showing that adjusting a power and laser focusing would have been novel and nonobvious to the operation of the invention because merely adjusting a power and laser focusing is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art to result in a different depth and therefore is not as substantial as to render a question whether the invention is novel and nonobvious. In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art would simply optimize laser power and laser focus for controlling a depth of the processed mark in light of Murashige in view of Kokusho. The Office notes that the recited method of the instant claim can be reached by one of ordinary skill in the art by simply choosing a different operating parameters to implement the recited method of dividing a material claimed in claim 1, so long as the laser operating conditions results in desired level of depth in the processed mark. A particular parameter can be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (please refer to MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have discovered the optimum or workable ranges, including values within the claimed range, through routine experimentation. Further, the claim is constructed in a passive tense. Recitation of a step in an active manner may help the Applicant to overcome potential indefinite rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). As to claim 5 , Murashige in view of Kokusho teaches to the method of claim 1, further comprising a composite material dividing step of, after brittle material removing step, dividing the composite material by application of external force along the planned division line (Murashige, paragraph [0048], teaches to using a cutting tool having any appropriate shape can be used as the cutting tool, and for example, a disc-like round cutting tool or a flat cutting tool whose cutting edge is linear can be used; using a cutting tool necessarily teaches to a step of comprising a composite material dividing step of, after brittle material removing step, dividing the composite material by application of external force along the planned division line for dividing the composite material) . As to claim 6 , Murashige in view of Kokusho teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein the thickness of the brittle material layer is 5 µm or more to 200 µm or less (Murashige, paragraph [0007], teaches to a thickness of a thin glass having 100 μm or less) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi Murashige of US 2015/0367621 A1 (hereinafter, Murashige) in view of Tomoji Kokusho of JP 2016166120 A (hereinafter, Kokusho), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Masahiro Fujii of US 20080061043 A1 (hereinafter, Fujii) . As to claim 3 , Murashige in view of Kokusho does not explicitly teach wherein the depth of the processed marks is 90% or less of a thickness of the brittle material layer. In an analogous art, Fujii teaches to wherein the depth of the processed marks is 90% or less of a thickness of the brittle material layer (Fujii, paragraph [0025], teaches to a range in 10% to 20% deepening of vertical crack 130 is limited to 10% to 20%; 10% reads as “90% or less”) . Both Murashige in view of Kokusho and Fujii relate to dividing a brittle material using a laser beam (Fujii, paragraph [0001]). Murashige in view of Kokusho does not explicitly teach the specific depth. Murashige in view of Kokusho does teach providing a depth using a laser by removing brittle material that partly forms the brittle material layer. Fujii teaches to a specific depth range of the brittle material for using a laser beam in dividing a brittle material, thereby resulting in an optimal depth by avoiding an internal field of compression stress that exists inside the brittle material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the of Murashige in view of Kokusho with the depth of Fujii for resulting in an optimal depth by avoiding an internal field of compression stress that exists inside the brittle material. As to claim 4 , Murashige in view of Kokusho and Fujii teaches to the method of claim 3, wherein the depth of the processed marks is 65% or less of the thickness of the brittle material layer (Fujii, paragraph [0025], teaches to a range in 10% to 20% deepening of vertical crack 130 is limited to 10% to 20%) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi Murashige of US 2015/0367621 A1 (hereinafter, Murashige) in view of Andreas Ortner of US 2016/0031745 A1 (hereinafter, Ortner) As to claim 7 , Murashige teaches to a composite material including a brittle material layer and a resin layer that are laminated together (Murashige, paragraph [0007], teaches to a method of producing a flexible film which includes cutting a laminate including a thin glass having a thickness of 100 μm or less and a resin layer arranged on one side, or each of both sides, of the thin glass; a laminate reads as the composite material) . Murashige does not explicitly teach wherein a surface roughness of a first region of the brittle material layer on the resin layer side of at least one end face of the brittle material layer is higher than a surface roughness of a second region of the brittle material layer on an opposite side of the end face from the resin layer. In an analogous art, Ortner teaches to wherein a surface roughness of a first region of the brittle material layer on the resin layer side of at least one end face of the brittle material layer is higher than a surface roughness of a second region of the brittle material layer on an opposite side of the end face from the resin layer (Ortner, paragraph [0064], Fig. 2, teaches to transverse cracks 46 within the brittle material layer within a damage formation 14 extending through the work piece 2; Ortner, paragraph [0010], and [0031] teaches that the induced damages (microcracks) are known to be much stronger on the entry side of the laser beam than on the exit side, which necessarily causes surface roughness in the cracked edge compared to the edge that is less affected by the laser irradiation compared to the cracked edge that is dispositioned closer to the ultrashort pulsed laser source; further, Ortner, paragraph [0066], teaches that the greater depth approach is successful due to the previously formed gaps and cleaving cracks in the direction of the breaking point which virtually presents a guiding channel for the second and subsequent laser pulse periods; in short, the term “a first region” may be interpreted as a plasma spot 41 in Fig. 2 of Ortner, whereas the term “a second region” may be interpreted as a plasma spot 62, for instance; due to the nature of the greater depth approach, the first region necessarily has a greater exposure to laser beam 12, resulting in higher surface roughness than that of the second region) . Both Murashige and Ortner relate to preparation for separating workpieces and substrates (Ortner, paragraph [0002]). Murashige does not explicitly teach the occurrence and propagation of cracks in the glass sheet. Murashige does teach irradiating a laser for removing resin in the resin/glass composite in dividing the composite. Ortner teaches to the greater depth approach that includes irradiating a laser for preparation of separating workpieces and substrates. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the separation method of Murashige with the greater depth approach of Ortner for providing surprisingly good quality of the so produced separation edges, thereby resulting in increased efficiency in separation of brittle workpieces, such as glass materials. As to claim 11 , Murashige in view of Ortner teaches to the method of claim 7, wherein the thickness of the brittle material is 5 µm or more to 200 µm or less (Murashige, paragraph [0007], teaches to a thickness of a thin glass having 100 μm or less) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi Murashige of US 2015/0367621 A1 (hereinafter, Murashige) in view of Andreas Ortner of US 2016/0031745 A1 (hereinafter, Ortner) and Weingarten, Christian, et al. "Laser polishing and laser shape correction of optical glass." Journal of laser applications 29.1 (2017) (hereinafter, Weingarten) . As to claim 8 , Murashige in view of Ortner does not explicitly teach wherein the surface roughness of the first region is less than 300 nm in terms of arithmetical mean height Sa, and the surface roughness of the second region is less than 12 nm in terms of arithmetical mean height Sa. In an analogous art, Weingarten teaches to wherein the surface roughness of the first region is less than 300 nm in terms of arithmetical mean height Sa, and the surface roughness of the second region is less than 12 nm in terms of arithmetical mean height Sa (Weingarten, pg. 011702-4, Fig. 10, teaches to roughness Sa of the first region is less than 300 nm and the second region is less than 12 nm, as laser polishing results in reducing roughness; surface roughness may be expressed, inter alia , by arithmetic average roughness Ra or by arithmetic area roughness Sa ) . Both Murashige in view of Ortner and Weingarten relate to using laser radiation to ablate glass material (Weingarten, pg. 011702-1). Murashige in view of Ortner does not explicitly teach specific values of arithmetical mean height on the ablated area compared to unablated area. Murashige in view of Ortner does teach to partially ablating glass material so that a crack is created in glass material layer. Weingarten teaches that laser ablation can create the specified Sa value . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the separation method of Murashige in view of Ortner with the desired surface roughness of Weingarten for providing a non-contact laser tool that cleanly volatilizes the material while sealing the edges to prevent fiber pull-out, thereby preventing mechanical defects in the separated substrates . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi Murashige of US 2015/0367621 A1 (hereinafter, Murashige) in view of Andreas Ortner of US 2016/0031745 A1 (hereinafter, Ortner), as applied to claim 7 above, and in further view of Masahiro Fujii US 20080061043 A1 (hereinafter, Fujii) . As to claim 9 , Murashige in view of Ortner does not explicitly teach wherein a thickness of the first region is 90% or less of a thickness of the brittle material layer. In an analogous art, Fujii teaches to wherein a thickness of the first region is 90% or less of a thickness of the brittle material layer (Fujii, paragraph [0025], teaches to a range in 10% to 20% deepening of vertical crack 130 is limited to 10% to 20%; 10% reads as “90% or less”) . Both Murashige in view of Ortner and Fujii relate to dividing a brittle material using a laser beam (Fujii, paragraph [0001]). Murashige in view of Ortner does not explicitly teach the specific depth. Murashige in view of Ortner does teach providing a depth using a laser by removing brittle material that partly forms the brittle material layer. Fujii teaches to a specific depth range of the brittle material for using a laser beam in dividing a brittle material, thereby resulting in an optimal depth by avoiding an internal field of compression stress that exists inside the brittle material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the of Murashige in view of Ortner with the depth of Fujii for resulting in an optimal depth by avoiding an internal field of compression stress that exists inside the brittle material. As to claim 10 , Murashige in view of Ortner and Fujii teaches to the method of claim 9, wherein the thickness of the first region is 65% or less of the thickness of the brittle material layer (Fujii, paragraph [0025], teaches to a range in 10% to 20% deepening of vertical crack 130 is limited to 10% to 20%; 10% reads as “90% or less”) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi Murashige of US 2015/0367621 A1 (hereinafter, Murashige) in view of Andreas Ortner of US 2016/0031745 A1 (hereinafter, Ortner), as applied to claim 7 above, and in further view of Jun Ito of EP 3345877 B1 (hereinafter, Ito) . As to claim 12 , Murashige in view of Ortner does not explicitly teach wherein a bending strength of the composite material when the composite material is bent such that the brittle material layer side is convex is 200 MPa or more. In an analogous art, Ito teaches to wherein a bending strength of the composite material when the composite material is bent such that the brittle material layer side is convex is 200 MPa or more (Ito, paragraph [0156], Fig. 12, teaches that the surface compressive stress of the first main surface 382 and the second main surface 384 of the first glass article 380 is, for example, in a range of 200 to 1000 MPa; Ito, paragraph [0021], teaches to deforming the glass plate to convexly curve the first main surface or the second main surface, and c) applying a tensile stress to the glass plate due to thermal stress along the in-plane void region) . Both Murashige in view of Ortner and Ito relate to a glass plate (Ito, paragraph [0001]). Murashige in view of Ortner does not explicitly teach a bending strength of the composite material comprising a glass plate. Murashige in view of Ortner does teach to the laser treatment of the composite material comprising a glass plate. Ito teaches to the specified bending strength of the glass plate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the separation method of Murashige in view of Ortner with the bending strength of Ito for providing high strength for glass articles, thereby improving the strength of the glass substrate. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1254. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-16:00. 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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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. /JOHN LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1794 /JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794 Application/Control Number: 18/024,381 Page 2 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 18/024,381 Page 3 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 18/024,381 Page 4 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 18/024,381 Page 5 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 18/024,381 Page 6 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 18/024,381 Page 7 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 18/024,381 Page 8 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 18/024,381 Page 9 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 18/024,381 Page 10 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 18/024,381 Page 11 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 18/024,381 Page 12 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 18/024,381 Page 13 Art Unit: 1794
Prosecution Insights