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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/30/26 has been entered. Claims 1, 5-7, and 15-17 are pending examination, claims 8-14 are withdrawn and claims 2-4 canceled.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5- 6, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al (US 2014/0242779; hereafter Nakamura) in view of Knickerbocker et al (US 2012/0193014; hereafter Knickerbocker) and Oshio et al (JPH06254456; citations directed to machine translation provided herein, hereafter Oshio).
Claim 1: Nakamura teaches a substrate processing method (see, for example, abstract), comprising:
rotating a laminated substrate manufactured by bonding a first substrate and a second substrate (see, for example, Fig 3-8, [0047-49]);
applying a filler, having thermosetting property (thermosetting resin), to a gap between a peripheral portion of the first substrate and a peripheral portion of the second substrate (see, for example, Fig 3-8, [0049])
and curing the filler, wherein applying the filler and curing the filler are continuously performed in a same processing chamber (see, for example, Fig 7-8, [0047-0049]).
Nakamura teaches the method of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein applying the filler comprises an opening of fill material supply unit / dispense nozzle body (31) opposite and in close proximity to the gap (see, for example, Fig 7-8, [0047-0048]). Nakamura is silent regarding particular details of the supply unit, so it does not explicitly teach applying the filler comprises conveying the filler by use of a conveyance mechanism which includes a tube having a discharge port and filled with a filler, and a filler conveyance member which extends from the discharge port and which is in close proximity to or contacts the gap, further wherein the filler flows out of the discharge port and then flows on an outside surface of the filer conveyance member to reach the gap.
Knickerbocker teaches wherein brush dispensers are well known supply units for adhesive application to gaps between peripheral portions of two laminated substrates (See, for example, Fig 8, [0028], claim 16). Knickerbocker further teaches wherein the brush conveyance mechanism comprises a filler conveyance member (such as a bristle of the brush) which extends in close proximity to or contacts the gap (See, for example, Fig 8, [0028]). Knickerbocker references the conveyance mechanism as a brush applicator / dispenser ([0028], claim 16), but does not explicitly teach wherein the conveyance mechanism includes a tube having a discharge port and filled with the filler wherein the conveyance member extends from the discharge port. Oshio teaches a method of dispensing adhesive using a brush, further a brush with an associated tube feed wherein the bristles (of 5) of the brush extend from a discharge port of a tube (22) filled with the adhesive so the adhesive flows out of the discharge port, onto an outside surface of the filler conveyance member (bristle) to reach the gap (See, for example, [0001-0007], [0046-0049], Fig 2 and 6). Oshio further teaches wherein such supplied brushes overcome issues of the prior art and achieve continuous application with constant width and stable application amount (See, for example, [0001-0009]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a filler supplied tube-fed brush as the conveyance mechanism for filler flow out of the discharge port on an outside surface of the bristle an further to reach the gap as it is well known in the art to predictably provide filler application to gaps between peripheral portions of two laminated substrates and further wherein the brush and associated tubular supply structure further provide improvements in achieving constant width and stable application amount further enabling continuous operation.
Claim 5: Nakamura further teaches wherein curing the filler comprises curing the filler by use of a lamp heater (Infrared rays irradiated from irradiation unit 32) (see, for example, [0049]).
Claim 6: Nakamura further teaches wherein the lamp heater is irradiates infrared radiation and is positioned above the laminated substrate directing its radiation toward the filler (see, for example, [0047-49], Fig 7-8). IR radiation is designated conventionally by possessing a wavelength between 780 nm – 1 mm. So although not explicitly irradiating a light having a wavelength of 1 micron or more, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a wavelength within the claimed range since in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 16: Knickerbocker and Oshio further teach wherein the filler conveyance member is flexible (see, for example, Knickerbocker [0028], Fig 8, and Ohio [0006-0010]) wherein the member is a bristle of a brush applicator).
Claim 17: Knickerbocker further teaches wherein the filler conveyance member (brush bristle) has a size that allows insertion into the gap (See, for example, Fig 8 wherein said member is in the gap).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Knickerbocker and Oshio as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bheda et al (US 2016/0266573; hereafter Bheda)
Claim 7: Nakamura in view of Knickerbocker and Oshio teaches the method of claim 1 above, and Nakamura further teaches curing of the thermosetting filler material via irradiation (IR , UV) and /or heating (see, for example, [0032], [0049]). But it is silent as to particular devices, so it does not explicitly teach curing the filler by use of a heat-gun. Bheda teaches a method of deposition and fast curing of thermosetting materials (See, for example, abstract). Bheda further teaches wherein IR lamps, lasers and heat guns are all well-known localized heating systems to ensure appropriate curing temperatures to predictably fast cure thermosetting materials (See, for example, abstract, [0077], [0086-0090]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a heat gun as the heating source since heat guns are well known in the art to predictably achieve fast curing thermosetting compositions while maintain appropriate curing temperatures, since primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference, and since where two known alternatives are interchangeable for a desired function, an express suggestion to substitute one for the other is not needed to render a substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297,301 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 568 (CCPA 1967).
Claims 5-6: refer to the rejections of claims 5-6 over Nakamura in view of Knickerbocker and Oshio, and Bheda further explicitly teaches infrared heat lamps are all well-known localized heating systems to ensure appropriate curing temperatures to predictably fast cure thermosetting materials (See, for example, abstract, [0077], [0086-0090]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an IR heat lamp as the heating source since IR heat lamps are well known in the art to predictably achieve fast curing thermosetting compositions while maintaining appropriate curing temperatures, since the primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference, and since where two known alternatives are interchangeable for a desired function, an express suggestion to substitute one for the other is not needed to render a substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297,301 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 568 (CCPA 1967).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Knickerbocker and Oshio as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kneidel (US 2010/0125963; hereafter Kneidel).
Claim 15: Nakamura in view of Knickerbocker and Oshio teach the method of claim 1 above, wherein Knickerbocker and Oshio has taught the filler conveyance member as a brush bristle(s) but it does not teach such a member is made of a material having a hydrophilic property. Kneidel teaches a method of modifying brush applicators, such as painting brushes (See, for example, [0001-0002]). Kneidel further teaches wherein modifying the bristles of such brush applicators allows for improved liquid pickup, retention, and release properties enhancing targeted delivery and volume control (See, for example, [0001], [0010], [0012], [0023], [0025]). Kneidel further teaches wherein the hydrophilic properties can be achieved by surface treatment or incorporated during formation of the bristle (see, for example, [0020]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a brush with bristles having a hydrophilic property by surface treatment or within its formation process since such hydrophilicity would predictably provide for improved liquid pickup, retention, and release properties enhancing targeted delivery and volume control.
Claim 16: Refer to the rejection of claim 15 above, wherein Kneidel has taught wherein conventional brush bristle are formed from polymeric materials like polyesters, PET, polyamides, nylon, etc (See, for example, [0026]) thus reading on being flexible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1, filed 3/30/26, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection(s) of the claims over Nakamura in view JP547 and Nakamura in view of Everaerts have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Nakamura in view of Knickerbocker and Oshio (and further in view of Bheda / Kneidel for claims 5-7 / 15-16); as described in detail above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN H EMPIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30AM - 4 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/NATHAN H EMPIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712