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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/17/2026 has been entered.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/18/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Final Rejection on 10/16/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The indicated allowability of claims 6, 7, 10-12, and 15 is withdrawn in view of the cited reference to Patil et al. (“Highly accurate, reliable, and non-contaminating two-dimensional material transfer system” published 2/24/2022 and including authors Hamed Dalir, Jin Ho Kang, Albert Davydov, and Chee Wei Wong there being no reasonable/sufficient explanation of record as to the presence of the additional authors see further MPEP 2153.01(a)). Rejections based on the cited reference(s) follow.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 2 or claim 3 or claim 4 or claim 8 or claim 9 be found allowable, corresponding claim 10 or claim 11 or claim 12 or claim 14 or claim 15 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2-4 and 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al. (“Highly accurate, reliable, and non-contaminating two-dimensional material transfer system”) in view of Hemnani et al. (U.S. Patent 10,919,280).
Regarding claims 2, 3, 6, 10, 11, and 13, Patil discloses a material transfer system for transferring material to or from a substrate, the system comprising: a transfer apparatus having a transfer material holder (PDMS holder see Pages 2, 3, and 6) for retaining a transfer material (PDMS strips); an imaging device (microscope and camera see Page 2) that captures an image of a flake located on the transfer material; a plurality of stamping apparatus (see Figures 2a, 2b, and 2c) having an intermediate portion with a longitudinal axis and a distal end portion, the distal end portion having a proximal section, middle section and distal section forming a distal end face, the middle section curved (bent to form a curved tip) with respect to the longitudinal axis to form a stamper contact surface at the middle section (see Figures 2a, 2b, and 2c and Page 6 and as shown in the Figures regarding claims 2 and 10 the curved middle section having an outer-facing surface along a length of the distal end portion, the stamper contact surface positioned at the outer-facing surface and regarding claims 3 and 11 the distal end portion forming a hook shape and regarding claim 13 wherein the intermediate portion is held at 45 degree angle with respect to the transfer material), the stamper contact surface configured to contact the transfer material, wherein the plurality of the stamping apparatus each having a stamper contact surface with a different size and shape (see Figures 2a, 2b, and 2c); and a processing device (computer runs camera software and image processing see pages 6 and 10) configured to determine a size and/or shape of the flake from the captured image (using the measurement feature in the camera software see page 6).
As to the limitation in claim 6 of “a processing device configured to”… …“select one of said plurality of stamping apparatus based on the size and/or shape of the flake”, Patil teaches the different size stamper range ensures the flake-stamper size matches (Page 2) wherein the user chooses an appropriate stamper size for achieving optimized transfer accuracy for a desired flake size and target (Page 5) wherein size and shape of the flake can be measured using the measurement feature in the camera software (Page 6). It is further known in the same art the entire process is conducted by the system automatically by the processing device without any manual interaction and in the process the size and shape of the distal end is selected to be only slightly larger than the size and shape of the flakes to be transferred as taught by Hemnani (Column 14, lines 38-42 and Column 16, lines 13-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the system taught by Patil include the processing device (computer) running the camera software and image processing configured to determine a size and/or shape of the flake from the captured image further configured to select one of the plurality of stamping apparatus based on the size and/or shape of the flake following that taught by Patil wherein the flake-stamper size match as chosen by a user and further as taught by Hemnani wherein the entire process (the process including the distal end is selected to be only slightly larger than the size and shape of the flakes to be transferred) is conducted by the system automatically by the processing device without any manual interaction (it being further noted broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (see MPEP 2144.04 and “III. AUTOMATING A MANUAL ACTIVITY”)).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Patil does not expressly teach the middle section of the distal end portion having a circular cross-section wherein conventional and predictable cross-section of a stamper is circular as evidenced by Hemnani (Column 8, lines 54-56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the middle section of the distal end portion taught by Patil as modified by Hemnani has a circular cross-section as is the conventional and predictable cross-section well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Hemnani.
Regarding claims 7-9, 14, and 15, Patil teaches the stamper contact surface is offset (constant shift see page 3) and positioned (constant shift) with respect to the transfer material based on a size of the stamping apparatus to compensate for variation in stretching of the transfer material wherein each stamper has an offset (constant shift) in the software (see page 3) and considered the processing device further configured to determine an offset (constant shift) based on the size of the selected one of the plurality of stamping apparatus to compensate for variation in stretching of the transfer material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/2026 have been fully considered.
In view of the amendments filed on 2/17/2026 the rejections set forth in the Office action mailed on 10/16/2025 are withdrawn. The claims are fully addressed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN L GOFF II whose telephone number is (571)272-1216. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST Monday - Friday.
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.
/JOHN L GOFF II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746