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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 10-13 are rejected since they are drawn to a method for handling a thin wafer/device; however, the y do not include any method steps. For sake of further examination, the claims are being examined as reciting an intended use. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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)(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. Claim s 6- 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)( 2 ) as being anticipated by US 2024/0034912 (Glass et al.) . Regarding claim 6 , Glass discloses a sheet, comprising a plurality of structures ( stems , 10 3 ), the structures being cylindrical (see paragraph 0010, Figure 3) with 140 microns in height (see paragraph 00 11 ), which is within the claimed range of 50 to 500 microns in height, and 130 microns in diameter (see paragraph 00 11 ), which is within the claimed range of 10 microns to 1 mm in diameter , Wherein the sheet has a configuration in which the plurality of structures are arranged with a same interval (see Figure 1 ), and The sheet is molded with a thermosetting resin (see paragraph 00 23 ). Regarding claim 7 , Glass also discloses that the thermosetting resin is a silicone-based thermosetting elastomer, or a urethane-based thermosetting elastomer (see paragraph 0023). Regarding claims 8 and 9 , Glass also discloses a handling sheet for a thinned wafer, comprising a base body (102); and the sheet according to claim 6 or 7 is laminated on the base body (see Figure 2, paragraph 0012). Regarding claims 10 and 11 , Glass also discloses a method for handling a thin wafer , wherein a silicon wafer or a compound semiconductor device is handled with bonding to the handling sheet for a thinned wafer according to claim 8 or 9 (see paragraphs 0011-0013). While Glass does not state that the thickness of the wafer is 300 microns or less, paragraph 00 0 2 of the present disclosure states that it is conventional for wafers to be 300 microns or less. Alternatively, in view of the interpretation under 112(b) (see above) this limitation is viewed as an intended use, which must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Regarding claims 12 and 13 , Glass also discloses a method for handling a thin device including glass panels (see paragraphs 0011-0013). While Glass does not specifically state that the laminated structure is used for handling a rectangular glass panel with a thickness of 1.5 millimeters or less as recited in the claims , a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The laminate disclosed by Glass includes all of the claimed structural features. 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 6 - 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0051187 (Hensel et al.). Regarding claim 6 , Hensel discloses a sheet (see paragraph 0010) , comprising a plurality of structures ( projections, 100 ), the structures being cylindrical with 10 microns to 2,000 (2 mm) in height (see paragraph 0037), which overlaps the claimed range of 50 to 500 microns in height, and 0.1 microns to 2 mm in diameter (see paragraph 0038), which overlaps the claimed range of 10 microns to 1 mm in diameter, wherein Wherein the sheet has a configuration in which the plurality of structures are arranged with a same interval (regular spacing) (see paragraph 0043), and The sheet is molded with a thermosetting resin (see paragraph 0048). 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Regarding claim 7 , Hensel also discloses that the thermosetting resin is an acrylic elastomer, a silicone-based elastomer, or a urethane-based elastomer (see paragraph 0049-0050). Regarding claims 8 and 9 , Hensel also discloses that the sheet of claim 6 or 7 is laminated on a base body (450) (see paragraph 0128, Figure 11B). While Hensel does not specifically state that the laminated structure is a handling sheet for a thinned wafer, this is a recitation of intended use which does not include any structural feature that is distinct from the prior art (see MPEP 2111.02). Regarding claims 10 and 11 , at paragraph 0002 Hensel discusses the sheet in relation to silicon wafers. While Hensel does not specifically state that the laminated structure is used in a method for handling a silicon as recited in the claim s , a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The laminate disclosed by Hensel includes all of the claimed structural features. Regarding claims 12 and 13 , at paragraph 0002 Hensel discusses the sheet in relation to glass or metal panels. While Hensel does not specifically state that the laminated structure is used in a method for handling a thin device as recited in the claims, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The laminate disclosed by Hensel includes all of the claimed structural features. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT WENDY L BOSS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7466 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8:30-6:30 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Katelyn Smith can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-5545 . 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. /WENDY L BOSS/ Examiner, Art Unit 1749 /ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781