DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/14/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/14/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the office action mailed on 5/14/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-5 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by (US 2015/0055943 A1) to Schroder et al. (hereinafter Schroder).
Schroder is directed toward thermal processing of a substrate. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0049] the curing of a film on a glass substrate. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0050] the curing is performed by a pulse to prevent thermal cracking of the glass. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0014] the film being formed is cooled between thermal pulses to protect the substrate. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0042] that the liquid film is drying during the curing process removing excess liquid. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0019] the pulses are from a flashlamp. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0054] the light may be filtered. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0016] the use of an oven. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0044] the material is metal. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0005] the substrate may be glass or ceramic. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0018] the substrate can be any fragile surface, which would include a semiconductor. Schroder discloses each and every element as arranged in claims 1-5 and 11-14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-5 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2015/0055943 A1) to Schroder et al. (hereinafter Schroder).
Schroder is directed toward thermal processing of a substrate. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0049] the curing of a film on a glass substrate. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0050] the curing is performed by a pulse to prevent thermal cracking of the glass. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0014] the film being formed is cooled between thermal pulses to protect the substrate. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0042] that the liquid film is drying during the curing process removing excess liquid. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0019] the pulses are from a flashlamp. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0054] the light may be filtered. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0016] the use of an oven. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0044] the material is metal. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0005] the substrate may be glass or ceramic. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0018] the substrate can be any fragile surface, which would include a semiconductor.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the disclosure of Schroder to select each and every element of the method as arranged in claims to form a prime facie case of obviousness for claims 1-5 and 11-14.
10. Claims 1-6 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2015/0055943 A1) to Schroder et al. (hereinafter Schroder) in view of the teachings of (US 2016/0023436 A1) to Liu et al. (hereinafter Liu).
Schroder is directed toward thermal processing of a substrate. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0049] the curing of a film on a glass substrate. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0050] the curing is performed by a pulse to prevent thermal cracking of the glass. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0014] the film being formed is cooled between thermal pulses to protect the substrate. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0042] that the liquid film is drying during the curing process removing excess liquid. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0019] the pulses are from a flashlamp. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0054] the light may be filtered. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0016] the use of an oven. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0044] the material is metal. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0005] the substrate may be glass or ceramic. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0018] the substrate can be any fragile surface, which would include a semiconductor.
Lui is directed toward the curing of films on substrates. Schroder and Lui are both directed toward the curing of films on substrates and therefore are analogous art. Lui teaches at paragraph [0018] that the substrate is glass having a polymer dissolved in a solvent that includes a polyamic acid that is cured into a thermoset film. Lui teaches at paragraph [0023] that the removal of liquid solvent may include baking in an oven. Lui teaches at paragraph [0027] that the thickness is 100A to 50 microns, which reads on Applicants range of less than 300 nm. One would be motivated to use a polyamic acid for a laser debonding process.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the disclosure of Schroder in view of the teachings of Lui to select each and every element of the method as arranged in claims to form a prime facie case of obviousness for claims 1-6 and 11-15.
11. Claims 1-6, 8-9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2015/0055943 A1) to Schroder et al. (hereinafter Schroder) in view of the teachings of (US 2016/0023436 A1) to Liu et al. (hereinafter Liu) in further view of (US 2013/0160318 A1) to Schroder et al. (hereinafter Schroder2).
Schroder is directed toward thermal processing of a substrate. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0049] the curing of a film on a glass substrate. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0050] the curing is performed by a pulse to prevent thermal cracking of the glass. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0014] the film being formed is cooled between thermal pulses to protect the substrate. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0042] that the liquid film is drying during the curing process removing excess liquid. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0019] the pulses are from a flashlamp. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0054] the light may be filtered. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0016] the use of an oven. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0044] the material is metal. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0005] the substrate may be glass or ceramic. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0018] the substrate can be any fragile surface, which would include a semiconductor.
Lui is directed toward the curing of films on substrates. Schroder and Lui are both directed toward the curing of films on substrates and therefore are analogous art. Lui teaches at paragraph [0018] that the substrate is glass having a polymer dissolved in a solvent that includes a polyamic acid that is cured into a thermoset film. Lui teaches at paragraph [0027] that the thickness is 100A to 50 microns, which reads on Applicants range of less than 300 nm. Lui teaches at paragraph [0023] that the removal of liquid solvent may include baking in an oven.
Schroder2 is directed toward thermal processing of a substrate. Schroder and Schroder2 are both directed toward thermal processing of a substrate and therefore are analogous art. Schroder2 teaches at paragraph [0014] the use of an air knife for cooling during cure. Schroder2 teaches at paragraph [0015] the use of a cooling roller as a thermal heat sink.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the disclosure of Schroder in view of the teachings of Lui and Shroder2 to select each and every element of the method as arranged in claims to form a prime facie case of obviousness for claims 1-6, 8-9 and 11-15.
12. Claims 1-6 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2015/0055943 A1) to Schroder et al. (hereinafter Schroder) in view of the teachings of (US 2016/0023436 A1) to Liu et al. (hereinafter Liu) in further view of (US 2013/0160318 A1) to Schroder et al. (hereinafter Schroder2) in further view of (US 2022/0127496 A1) to Puligadda et al. (hereinafter Puligadda).
Schroder is directed toward thermal processing of a substrate. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0049] the curing of a film on a glass substrate. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0050] the curing is performed by a pulse to prevent thermal cracking of the glass. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0014] the film being formed is cooled between thermal pulses to protect the substrate. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0042] that the liquid film is drying during the curing process removing excess liquid. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0019] the pulses are from a flashlamp. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0054] the light may be filtered. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0016] the use of an oven. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0044] the material is metal. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0005] the substrate may be glass or ceramic. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0018] the substrate can be any fragile surface, which would include a semiconductor.
Lui is directed toward the curing of films on substrates. Schroder and Lui are both directed toward the curing of films on substrates and therefore are analogous art. Lui teaches at paragraph [0018] that the substrate is glass having a polymer dissolved in a solvent that includes a polyamic acid that is cured into a thermoset film. Lui teaches at paragraph [0023] that the removal of liquid solvent may include baking in an oven. Lui teaches at paragraph [0027] that the thickness is 100A to 50 microns, which reads on Applicants range of less than 300 nm.
Schroder2 is directed toward thermal processing of a substrate. Schroder and Schroder2 are both directed toward thermal processing of a substrate and therefore are analogous art. Schroder2 teaches at paragraph [0014] the use of an air knife for cooling during cure. Schroder2 teaches at paragraph [0015] the use of a cooling roller as a thermal heat sink.
Puligadda is directed toward thermal processing of a substrate. Schroder and Puligadda are both directed toward thermal processing of a substrate and therefore are analogous art. Puligadda teaches at paragraph [0063] the flipping over of the substrate for release during curing.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the disclosure of Schroder in view of the teachings of Lui, Shroder2 and Puligadda to select each and every element of the method as arranged in claims to form a prime facie case of obviousness for claims 1-6 and 8-15.
13. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2015/0055943 A1) to Schroder et al. (hereinafter Schroder) in view of the teachings of (US 2016/0023436 A1) to Liu et al. (hereinafter Liu) in further view of (US 2013/0160318 A1) to Schroder et al. (hereinafter Schroder2) in further view of (US 2022/0127496 A1) to Puligadda et al. (hereinafter Puligadda) in still further view of (US 2013/0087959 A1) to Tran et al. (hereinafter Tran).
Schroder is directed toward thermal processing of a film on a glass substrate. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0049] the curing of a film on a glass substrate. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0050] the curing is performed by a pulse to prevent thermal cracking of the glass. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0014] the film being formed is cooled between thermal pulses to protect the substrate. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0042] that the liquid film is drying during the curing process removing excess liquid. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0019] the pulses are from a flashlamp. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0054] the light may be filtered. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0016] the use of an oven. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0044] the material is metal. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0005] the substrate may be glass or ceramic. Schroder discloses at paragraph [0018] the substrate can be any fragile surface, which would include a semiconductor.
Lui is directed toward the curing of films on substrates. Schroder and Lui are both directed toward the curing of films on substrates and therefore are analogous art. Lui teaches at paragraph [0018] that the substrate is glass having a polymer dissolved in a solvent that includes a polyamic acid that is cured into a thermoset film. Lui teaches at paragraph [0023] that the removal of liquid solvent may include baking in an oven. Lui teaches at paragraph [0027] that the thickness is 100A to 50 microns, which reads on Applicants range of less than 300 nm.
Schroder2 is directed toward thermal processing of a substrate. Schroder and Schroder2 are both directed toward thermal processing of a substrate and therefore are analogous art. Schroder2 teaches at paragraph [0014] the use of an air knife for cooling during cure. Schroder2 teaches at paragraph [0015] the use of a cooling roller as a thermal heat sink.
Puligadda is directed toward thermal processing of a substrate. Schroder and Puligadda are both directed toward thermal processing of a substrate and therefore are analogous art. Puligadda teaches at paragraph [0063] the flipping over of the substrate for release during curing.
Tran is directed toward thermal processing of a film on a glass substrate. Schroder and Tran are both directed toward thermal processing of a film on a glass substrate and therefore are analogous art. Tran teaches at paragraph [0024] that the substrate may be a glass. Tran teaches at paragraph [0036] that the thermoset film may be an epoxy. Tran teaches at paragraph [0025] that there is a low thermal expansion coefficient.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the disclosure of Schroder in view of the teachings of Lui, Shroder2, Puligadda and Tran to select each and every element of the method as arranged in claims to form a prime facie case of obviousness for claims 1-16.
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY D WASHVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3262. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
15. 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.
16. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
17. 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.
/JEFFREY D WASHVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights