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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Amendments/Response filed on February 23, 2026. No claims have been amended. No additional claims have been added. No claims have been cancelled. Claims 1-8 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
The examiner fully acknowledges the applicant has opted to not amend any claims in the communications filed on February 23, 2026.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments, see pages 3-5, filed February 23, 2026 have been fully considered.
102 Rejections: The applicant has argued that Kyu fails to disclose claim 1. Applicant states, in brief, that Kyu fails to disclose “increasing a vacuum level in a vacuum region…to increase a suction force…for releasing the substrate.” The applicant argues Kyu merely teaches a method of release accomplished by deformation and reduction in contact area between the dry adhesive and object, removal occurring by the “weight of the object.”
However, the process that causes the deformation and reduction of contact area between the between the apparatus of Kyu and the workpiece is one of increasing the vacuum pressure. Kyu [0061-0062] states that an actuating part “drawings fluid into the shape” and then “further draws a certain amount of fluid” to grip the part with dry adhesive, and [0064] “as a part of the fluid is drawn out (negative pressure, i.e. vacuum)…the shape deforming portion is crushed…[0065]…the contact area between dry type adhesive…and the object becomes small, and the suction force…is removed.” The process Kyu discloses increases the suction force, to draw out fluid, which results in the contact structure deforming which results in contact area decreasing and the workpiece being released. All of this is “for releasing a substrate.” So while the terminology used by Kyu is different, the end goal of the method is the same and involves a process that at least requires increasing suction force that pulls an object towards a dry adhesive, and increasing it to the point where the wafer is released. The applicant’s arguments are fully considered by not found persuasive.
103 Rejections: Applicant argues that the teaching references fail to address the supposed deficiencies of Kyu regarding claim 1. While the examiner agrees that the teaching references are not directed specifically towards increasing a vacuum level for releasing a substrate, it is because the examiner does not find Kyu deficient. The applicants’ statements are fully considered but not found persuasive.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 08/24/2023 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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.
(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.
Claims 1 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by KWAK MOON KYU (KR20170068007, henceforward referred to as Kyu).
In regards to claim 1, Kyu discloses
a method for releasing a substrate (flat transport object G, fig. 4 and 6a-6b) from at least one holding arrangement (transfer device 1’, fig. 4-6b), comprising:
increasing a vacuum level in a vacuum region (see fig. 6a/6b - ann. 1) of the at least one holding arrangement to increase a suction force with which the substrate (flat transport object G, fig. 4 and 6a-6b) is pulled towards a dry adhesive material (dry adhesion portion 30’, fig. 5-6b) of the at least one holding arrangement, for releasing the substrate (flat transport object G, fig. 4 and 6a-6b).
PNG
media_image1.png
849
1000
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[0049-0065]:
[0049] FIG. 4 is a perspective view of a transfer device using a dry adhesive according to another embodiment of the present invention, and FIG. 5 is a sectional view of a transfer device using a dry adhesive according to another embodiment of the present invention.
[0051] 4 and 5, a transfer device 1 'using a dry adhesive according to another embodiment of the present invention includes a base plate 10', a shape deforming portion 20 ', a dry adhesive portion 30' And an operation unit 40 '.
[0052] The base plate 10 'is formed in a substantially plate shape, and a receiving groove 11' is formed on one side of the lower surface and a through hole 12 'is formed on one side of the upper surface to communicate with the receiving groove 11'.
[0054] The shape deforming portion 20 'is formed of a soft rubber material and is installed inside a base plate 10' formed with a receiving groove 11 'and a through hole 12' Lt; / RTI & ⟩
[0055] The shape deforming portion 20 'deforms as the fluid is drawn in or drawn out by the operating portion 40' described later. At the same time, the shape of the dry adhesive to be described later is mutually deformed, The object to be transported is easily adsorbed or the object to be transported is removed from the dry adhesive.
[0056] The dry-type adhesive portion 30 'is a dry adhesive formed in a substantially pad shape and is installed on one side of the lower side of the base plate 10' corresponding to the receiving groove 11 ' When the shape is deformed, it is accompanied by deformation, and it plays a role of adsorbing or removing the transported object.
[0059] FIG. 6A is a view showing a state where a conveyed object is gripped and held in a dry-type adhering portion according to another embodiment of the present invention, and FIG. 6B is a view showing a state in which a conveyed object is removed from a dry-type adhering portion according to another embodiment of the present invention FIG.
[0060] The operation of the transfer device 1 'using the dry adhesive according to another embodiment of the present invention having such a configuration will be described with reference to FIGS. 6A and 6B.
[0061] First, as the actuating part 40 'draws fluid into the shape deforming part 20', the shape of the dry sticking part 30 'is formed flat. At this time, the dry sticking part 30' So that the object to be transported is gripped by the dry-type adhesive portion 30 '.
[0062] The operation part 40 'further draws a certain amount of fluid into the receiving groove 11' and preloads the dry-type adhesive part 30 'in a state where the object to be conveyed is gripped by the dry-type adhesive part 30' So that the object to be conveyed is firmly attracted to the dry-type adhesive portion 30 '.
[0064] Next, the inlet / outlet portion 41 'draws a part of the fluid from the shape deformation portion 20' to the temporary storage portion 42 '. As a part of the fluid is drawn out from the shape deformation portion 20' As the shape deforming portion 20 'is crushed, the dry attaching portion 30' provided at the lower portion of the shape deforming portion 20 'is also curled upward as one side is bent.
[0065] As shown in FIG. 6, as the shape of the dry-type adhesive portion 30 'is deformed as described above, the contact area between the dry-type adhesive portion 30' and the object to be conveyed becomes small, and the suction force of the dry- The conveyed object is removed from the dry-type adhering portion 30 'by the weight of the object.
In regards to claim 6, Kyu discloses
the method according to claim 1, wherein the holding arrangement includes a seal (shape deforming portion 20’, fig. 4-6b; [0049-0065]) surrounding the dry adhesive material (dry adhesion portion 30’, fig. 5-6b) and configured to provide the vacuum region (see fig. 6a/6b - ann. 1).
In regards to claim 7, Kyu discloses
the method according to claim 1, wherein the holding arrangement includes a conduit (through hole 12’, fig. 4-6b; [0049-0065]) to evacuate the vacuum region (see fig. 6a/6b - ann. 1).
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.
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.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyu (KR20170068007) in view of Sitti (US Patent No. 8206631).
In regards to claim 2, Kyu discloses
the method according to claim 1, wherein the dry adhesive material (dry adhesion portion 30’, fig. 5-6b), wherein the substrate (flat transport object G, fig. 4 and 6a-6b) is released by applying a negative pressure ([0049-0065]) to the vacuum region (see fig. 6a/6b - ann. 1) to move the substrate (flat transport object G, fig. 4 and 6a-6b) closer to a body portion of the at least one holding arrangement to buckle dry adhesive material (dry adhesion portion 30’, fig. 5-6b).
However, Kyu fails to disclose that the dry adhesive material comprises “a plurality of filaments.” Kyu does acknowledge the existence and advantage of such kinds of dry adhesives:
[0011] Recently, studies on dry adhesives of tilted nano structures inspired by Gecko lizards have been actively pursued as a method for solving the problems of existing adhesives.
[0012] Such a dry adhesive has a feature that the adhesion structure is formed by several hundreds of micrometers and nanometers in size to have a relatively large surface area at the time of adhesion so as to improve the adhesive force and to prevent contaminants from remaining on the adherend upon desorption.
Sitti teaches advantages and implementations for using dry fibrillar structure, specifically Gecko type dry adhesives:
Col. 3 lines 56-65: The dry fibrillar adhesive structures found in nature exhibit properties, which may be highly desirable in synthetic materials. The mechanics which gives rise to the adhesion in these structures does not rely on liquids or pressure differentials, therefore fibrillar dry adhesives are uniquely suited for a variety of uses. Since dry adhesives leave no residue and can grip over large areas, they could be used as grippers for delicate parts for transfer and assembly of anything from computer chips in a clean-room to very large porous carbon-fiber panels for vehicle construction.
Col. 9 lines 52-58: Gecko toes have been shown to adhere with high interfacial shear strength to smooth surfaces (88-200 kPa), using microscale angled fiber structures on their feet. However, even with such large adhesion pressures, the detachment forces measured during climbing are nearly non-existent. The gecko is able to release its adhesive toes without overcoming the large adhesion forces, which it relies on to climb and cling to surfaces.
Col. 15 line 67- col. 16 line 7: Furthermore, visual observations of these tests reveal that the fiber tips adhere and stretch when displaced in the `gripping` direction, whereas the tips flip over and slide when displaced in the `releasing` direction. This sliding behavior suggests that the fibers quickly detach and cannot support normal loading. In other words, they may be easily separated after being displaced in this direction.
Kyu and Sitti are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of applying dry adhesives for the purpose of effectively holding workpieces without requiring a further detaching apparatus or means.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the dry adhesive disclosed by Kyu for the synthetic fibrillar fibers taught by Sitti for their increased strength and ease of release applications (Col. 3 lines 56-65, Col. 9 lines 52-58, Col. 15 line 67- col. 16 line 7)
In regards to claim 4, Kyu discloses
the method according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose that the dry adhesive material (dry adhesion portion 30’, fig. 5-6b) is “a synthetic setae material and/or a Gecko adhesive.”
Kyu does acknowledge the existence and advantage of such kinds of dry adhesives:
[0011] Recently, studies on dry adhesives of tilted nano structures inspired by Gecko lizards have been actively pursued as a method for solving the problems of existing adhesives.
[0012] Such a dry adhesive has a feature that the adhesion structure is formed by several hundreds of micrometers and nanometers in size to have a relatively large surface area at the time of adhesion so as to improve the adhesive force and to prevent contaminants from remaining on the adherend upon desorption.
Sitti teaches advantages and implementations for using dry fibrillar structure, specifically Gecko type dry adhesives:
Col. 3 lines 56-65: The dry fibrillar adhesive structures found in nature exhibit properties, which may be highly desirable in synthetic materials. The mechanics which gives rise to the adhesion in these structures does not rely on liquids or pressure differentials, therefore fibrillar dry adhesives are uniquely suited for a variety of uses. Since dry adhesives leave no residue and can grip over large areas, they could be used as grippers for delicate parts for transfer and assembly of anything from computer chips in a clean-room to very large porous carbon-fiber panels for vehicle construction.
Col. 9 lines 52-58: Gecko toes have been shown to adhere with high interfacial shear strength to smooth surfaces (88-200 kPa), using microscale angled fiber structures on their feet. However, even with such large adhesion pressures, the detachment forces measured during climbing are nearly non-existent. The gecko is able to release its adhesive toes without overcoming the large adhesion forces, which it relies on to climb and cling to surfaces.
Col. 15 line 67- col. 16 line 7: Furthermore, visual observations of these tests reveal that the fiber tips adhere and stretch when displaced in the `gripping` direction, whereas the tips flip over and slide when displaced in the `releasing` direction. This sliding behavior suggests that the fibers quickly detach and cannot support normal loading. In other words, they may be easily separated after being displaced in this direction.
Kyu and Sitti are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of applying dry adhesives for the purpose of effectively holding workpieces without requiring a further detaching apparatus or means.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the dry adhesive disclosed by Kyu for the synthetic fibrillar fibers taught by Sitti for their increased strength and ease of release applications (Col. 3 lines 56-65, Col. 9 lines 52-58, Col. 15 line 67- col. 16 line 7)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyu (KR20170068007) in view of Sugaya et al. (US Patent No. 6394797).
In regards to claim 3, Kyu discloses
the method according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose increasing the vacuum level providing a negative pressure “smaller than about 1 bar and larger than 0 bar.”
Sugaya, which discloses a substrate holding method involving a vacuum chuck, teaches:
Col. 5 Lines 20-27: Because the pressure generated serves as the contact pressure in any case, the pressure of the space is preferably controlled to a predetermined constant value. It is indicated for vacuum chuck that the lower limit of the pressure is 10 Torr as described above, and the upper limit is 700 Torr, from the respect of the formation of contact resistance and the preparation of a substrate with flat surface, whereby preferable results are recovered.
Kyu and Sugaya are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of applying vacuum holding means for the purposes of engaging and controlling a substrate-workpiece.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied a pressure between 10 and 700 Torr (0 and 0.933257) as means to effectively create a substantial contact force between the workpiece and dry adhesive of Kyu, serving the purpose of being a vacuum chuck for holding a substrate.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyu (KR20170068007) in view of Kokubo et al. (US PG Pub No. 20130152364).
In regards to claim 5, Kyu discloses
the method according to claim 1, but fails to disclose that the substrate (flat transport object G, fig. 4 and 6a-6b) is “a large area substrate of at least 0.67 m2.”
Kokubo, which discloses “[0002]…a work holder, a work setting apparatus…that holds a work with the use of vacuum suction and adhesive, a work setting apparatus employing the work holder, and a work setting method employing the work holder,” teaches a substrate of at least 0.67 m2 in area:
[0025] The product W is, for example, a rectangular flat plate having a side length of about 1000 mm (short side per fig. 3A) with the base material W3, protrusions W4, and cured membranous material W6 being layered one on another and solidified together. The product W is properly cut into pieces when used as a backlight of a liquid crystal display of, for example, a cellular phone.
Kyu and Kokubo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of applying vacuum holding means for the purposes of engaging and controlling a substrate-workpiece.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a workpiece of at least 0.67 m2 given the apparatus of Kyu would be capable of maintaining adequate surface contact with the workpiece, ensuring control of the connection during processing.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyu (KR20170068007).
In regards to claim 8, Kyu discloses
the method according to claim 1, but doesn’t explicitly state that the releasing of the substrate (flat transport object G, fig. 4 and 6a-6b) is performed under “non-vacuum conditions.”
However, to the examiner’s best understanding, “non-vacuum conditions” is intended to refer to the environmental conditions (per applicant’s specification [0043]) surrounding the device and workpiece.
The claimed vacuum region is understood refer to the immediate workpiece area where negative fluid pressure draws the workpiece to the holding apparatus. So “non-vacuum conditions” would mean an environment either under neutral or positive pressure. As Kyu doesn’t disclose a negatively pressurized chamber or enclosure within its method, a skilled artisan would recognize its process occurs in a non-vacuum environment.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON KHALIL HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-5446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8-5PM.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/JASON KHALIL HAWKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723