DETAILED 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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koyama et al. (US 20160104635).
As to claim 1, Koyama discloses a method for temporarily bonding laminates in semiconductor devices (Abstract). Koyama discloses that the method comprises of: treating the adhesive bonding two bonded substrates with a debonding agent; the debonding agent comprising acetone at a temperature of 25ºC (¶32).
As to claim 2, the method of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Koyama discloses that the debonding agent may comprise of a surfactant (¶99).
As to claim 3, the method of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Koyama discloses that the debonding agent may comprise of
As to claim 6, the method of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Koyama discloses that the treating temperature occurs within the recited temperature range (¶32).
As to claim 7, the method of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Koyama discloses that the adhesive may comprise of epoxy resins (¶117).
As to claim 8, the method of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Koyama discloses that the substrates may comprise of metal and/or glass substrates (¶227).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyama et al. (US 20160104635) in view of Durniak (US 20190016108).
As to claim 5, the method of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Koyama fails to specifically teach or disclose that the surfaces may be cleaned after separation. Durniak discloses a method for separating components (Abstract). Durniak discloses that it is known and conventional in the art to perform a cleaning step after separation to remove residual adhesive left upon a previously bonded surface (¶14; 36). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to perform a cleaning step after the separation step in the method of Koyama and would have been motivated to do so because Durniak teaches that such a step removes residual adhesive left upon the previously bonded surface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 3 recites that the debonding agent comprises at least 95% of acetone based on the weight of the debonding agent. The closest prior art of Koyama et al. (US 20160104635) fails to teach or disclose that the debonding agent may comprise of 95% acetone.
Claim 4 recites that the debonding agent comprises oleic acid, water, an alkanolamine, and a non-ionic surfactant. None of the prior art teaches or discloses a method using a debonding agent comprising of the recited materials as in claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET whose telephone number is (571)270-3968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM EST.
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, PHILLIP TUCKER can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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 C CAILLOUET/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/GEORGE R KOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745