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 .
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 26, 30, 33, 35 and 36 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.
Regarding claim 26, the preamble recites "a bonded body," i.e., a structure obtained by adhering a substrate to an adhesive, thus the claim presents itself as a product-by-process claim. However, the last phrase of the claim recites a process step, positively reciting "and the substrate is released by laser light having a wavelength of less than 385 nm." Thus the claim also teaches a process wherein the recited "bonded body" is de-bonded by a positive act of a user. Thus, claim 26 as currently recited is not a product-by-process claim, but rather a single claim that recites both a product and method steps of using the product and is therefore considered indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Regarding claim 30, the recitations of component (A), component (B), component (C) and component (D) in the first phrase of the claim lack antecedent basis. Although the second phrase recites a "second" cured layer according to claim 2 and claim 2 depends from claim 1, such recitation fails to clearly set forth that the components recited in the first phrase for the "first" cured layer are the components recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 33, at the last line, the placement of parentheses around "355 nm" renders unclear whether "355 nm" is a limitation in the claim. In order to advance prosecution, the claim will be considered on the merits as if "(355 nm)" is amended to remove the parentheses and recite "of 355 nm."
Regarding claims 35 and 36, similar to the discussion above regarding claim 30, the recitations of component (A), component (B), component (C) and component (D) in the first phrase of each claim lack antecedent basis.
Also regarding claim 36, the two instances of "as needed" render the claim indefinite.
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)(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.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 14, 20-26 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimada et al., US 2022/0220240 (hereafter Shimada).
Regarding claim 1, Shimada discloses a composition (Abstract and paras [0008]-[0010]). The recitation of "for temporary bonding" is a statement of future use that does not limit the structure of this composition claim.
Regarding the recitation of (A), a bifunctional (meth)acrylate not having a cyclic structure, Shimada discloses the composition of Shimada may include a bifunctional (meth)acrylate that may be acyclic, i.e., not have a cyclic structure (para [0018]).
Regarding the recitation of (B), a bifunctional (meth)acrylate having a cyclic structure, Shimada discloses its composition must include an alicyclic bifunctional (meth) acrylate (paras [0015]-[0017]).
Regarding the recitation of (C) a photo radical polymerization initiator, Shimada discloses the composition of Shimada may include a polymerization initiator that may be a photopolymerization initiator (para [0022]). Shimada providing examples that include photo radical polymerization initiators, such as phosphine oxides (para [0022]).
Regarding claim 2, Shimada teaches the inclusion of a UV absorbing agent, i.e., UV absorber, at para [0023].
Regarding claims 3 and 4, an example of a composition according to Shimada includes polyethylene glycol diacrylate (para [0046]), understood to have a molecular weight of 250 or more and not having an alkyl ether structure.
Regarding claim 5, an example of a composition according to Shimada includes glycidyl methacrylate (para [0046]) that is bifunctional and has an aliphatic hydrocarbon structure having an ester structure.
Regarding claim 6, Shimada discloses that its alicyclic bifunctional (meth)acrylate may be cyclohexane dimethanol di(meth)acrylate (para [0017]), understood to be solid at room temperature, i.e., room temperature. An example of a composition according to Shimada includes 2,2-bis (4-methacryloyloxyphenyl) propane (para [0046]), also understood to be solid at room temperature.
Regarding claim 7, an example of a composition according to Shimada includes 2,2-bis (4-methacryloyloxyphenyl) propane (para [0046]), a cyclic structure including an aromatic ring.
Regarding claim 9, Shimada discloses that methacrylates according to Shimada may include a fluorine atom (para [0014]), thus disclosing the recited fluorine structure.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Shimada discloses that its polymerization initiator may be, for example, 2-benzyl-2-dimethylamino-1(4-morpholinophenyl)-butane-1-one, 1-[( 4-phenylthio )phenyl]-1,2-octadione-2-(benzoyl)oxime, bis(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl) phenylphosphine oxide, or 2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyldiphenyiphosphine oxide, all of which are recited in claim 11 and are understood to have the property recited in claim 10 of generating a radical with light having a wavelength of 350 nm or more.
Regarding claim 14, Shimada discloses its composition may include a monofunctional (meth)acrylate at para [0018]).
Regarding claims 20-23 and 29, the recitation of an adhesive "for temporary bonding" in claims 20 and 22 and 29 recites a future use that does not further limit these product claims. An adhesive is broadly understood as anything capable of sticking to the surface of something else. In view of the teaching in Shimada that the composition of Shimada may form a cured layer, i.e., a cured body, that is bonded to a surface of a substrate, that may, for example, be a plastic or glass material and also to a protective layer (paras [0025]-[0031]), such a layer according to Shimada is understood as an adhesive body that cures into a cured body (see paras [0043]-[0046] with para [0044] teaching applying the composition of Shimada by a spin coating method followed by the application of ultraviolet rays at a wavelength of 405 nm). Further support for finding a layer according to Shimada is an adhesive layer is found at paras [0028]-[0029] describing using the polymerizable composition of Shimada for forming a photochromic layer that exhibits adhesion with respect to a protective layer of a photochromic article. The claim 29 recitation of "whose application is UV laser release" is a statement of future use that does not further limit product claim 29 that depends from product claim 20, both directed to an adhesive, not a method of use.
Regarding claims 24 and 25, the recitation in claim 24 of "wherein a mass reduction reaches 2% at a temperature of 250°C or more under nitrogen atmosphere" and the recitation in claim 25 of "wherein a mass reduction reaches 2% at a temperature of 250°C or more under reduced pressure environment of 30 to 100 Pa," are understood as statements of a result of testing the cured body recited in claim 22, which is obtained by curing the composition recited in claim 1. Shimada is silent as to performing such tests. However, the claimed materials are the same and presumed to therefore have the same properties. The burden is shifted to the applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP Sections 2112-2112.02. The courts have held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of the claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 USC § 102, on prima facie obviousness" under 35 USC § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products." In re Best, 562 F2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-4 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 26, Shimada teaches a bonded body wherein a layer of the body is adhered to a substrate, such layer is described as a coating layer, i.e., an adhesive layer that is bonded to the substrate (paras [0043]-[0046]).
Regarding the recitation of (A), a bifunctional (meth)acrylate not having a cyclic structure, Shimada discloses the composition of Shimada may include a bifunctional (meth)acrylate that may be acyclic, i.e., not have a cyclic structure (para [0018]).
Regarding the recitation of (B), a bifunctional (meth)acrylate having a cyclic structure, Shimada discloses its composition must include an alicyclic bifunctional (meth) acrylate (paras [0015]-[0017]).
Regarding the recitation of (C) a photo radical polymerization initiator, Shimada discloses the composition of Shimada may include a polymerization initiator that may be a photopolymerization initiator (para [0022]). Shimada providing examples that include photo radical polymerization initiators, such as phosphine oxides (para [0022]).
Regarding the recitation that the adhesive is cured with light having a wavelength of 350 nm or more, see Example 1 a paras [0043]-[0046] and the teaching at para [0044] of curing at 405 nm.
Regarding the final recitation of "and the substrate is released by laser light having a wavelength of less than 385 nm," please see the Section 112 rejection of the claim. This limitation is a method step performed on the bonded body that does not further limit the bonded body.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10, 14, 17, 20-26 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Denki Kagaku Kogyo KK, JP2014091774 (hereafter Denki), made of record by Applicant (with English Abstract). This rejection is discussed with reference to the attached machine translation of the description.
Regarding claim 1, Denki is directed to an adhesive and a bonding/dis-bonding method (para [0001]), and to a (meth)acrylic resin composition for forming the adhesive (para [0016]). Although the recitation of "for temporary bonding" in claim 1 is a statement of future use that does not further limit this composition claim, it is noted that Denki is understood to disclose a composition that may be used for temporary bonding.
The composition of Denki includes a bifunctional (meth)acrylate monomer identified as component (B), such as 1,3-butylene glycol di(meth) acrylate (para [0024]), i.e., a (meth)acrylate not having a cyclic structure, i.e., component (A) of claim 1.
The composition of Denki further includes a component identified as (A) that is preferably bifunctional, having two (meth)acryloyl groups (para [0018]) and having a cyclic structure (paras [0018]-[0021], examples of which include bis-A type epoxy (meth)acrylates, such as 2,2-bis (4-(methacryloxy-ethoxy)phenyl) propane (para [0021]).
The composition of Denki further includes a photo radical polymerization initiator as component D (para [0028] teaching two examples), thus disclosing component (C) of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, some of the bifunctional (meth)acrylates (B) according to Denki (i.e., component (A) of the claims) have a molecular weight of 250 or more, e.g., 1,9-nonanediol di(meth)acrylate identified in para [0024]).
Regarding claim 4, some of the bifunctional (meth)acrylates (B) according to Denki (i.e., component (A) of the claims) do not have an alkyl ether structure, e.g., 1,3-butylene glycol di(meth)acrylate and 1,9-nonanediol di(meth)acrylate identified in para [0024].
Regarding claim 5, some of the bifunctional (meth)acrylates (B) according to Denki (i.e., component (A) of the claims) have an ester structure, e.g., 1,3-butylene glycol di(meth)acrylate (para [0024]).
Regarding claim 6, some of the bifunctional (meth)acrylates (A) according to Denki (i.e., component (B) of the claims) are liquid at room temperature (i.e., 23°C) and have a viscosity of 500 mPA*s or more (e.g., 2,2-bis(4-(methacryloxy-ethoxy)phenyl)propane (ethylene oxide 10 mol) and 2,2-bis(4-(methacryloxy-ethoxy)phenyl)propane (ethylene oxide 17 mol) identified at para [0021]).
Regarding claim 7, the bifunctional (meth)acrylates (A) according to Denki (i.e., component (B) of the claims) have the cyclic structure including an aromatic ring (see paras [0018]-[0021] and examples at para [0021]).
Regarding claim 8, the bifunctional (meth)acrylates (A) according to Denki (i.e., component (B) of the claims) may have a phenol ether structure, e.g., the 2,2-bis(4-(methacryloxy-ethoxy)phenyl)propane compounds identified at para [0021].
Regarding claim10, see para [0016] at page 9 of Denki disclosing bonding adhesive substrates together using the adhesive of Denki at 365 nm, thus disclosing component (C) having generating a radical with light having a wavelength of 350 nm or more.
Regarding claim 14, Denki discloses the inclusion of (C), a monofunctional (meth)acrylate (para [0016]), thus disclosing the recited (E) a monofunctional (meth)acrylate.
Regarding claim 17, Denki discloses the inclusion of a water-absorbing polymer (E) at para [0032]).
Regarding claim 20, Denki discloses using the (meth)acrylic composition of Denki as an adhesive at para [0045]).
Regarding claim 21, Denki discloses a bonded body at para [0045] created by using the (meth)acrylic resin composition of Denki to bond substrates together.
Regarding claim 22, Denki discloses a cured body at para [0045]).
Regarding claim 23, Denki discloses a cured body in the form of a layer disposed between substrates at para [0045]).
Regarding claims 24 and 25, the recitation in claim 24 of "wherein a mass reduction reaches 2% at a temperature of 250C or more under nitrogen atmosphere" and the recitation in claim 25 of "wherein a mass reduction reaches 2% at a temperature of 250C or more under reduced pressure environment of 30 to 100 Pa," are understood as being statements of a result of testing the cured body recited in claim 22, which is obtained by curing the composition recited in claim 1. Denki is silent as to performing such tests. However, the claimed materials are the same and presumed to therefore have the same properties. The burden is shifted to the applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP Sections 2112-2112.02. The courts have held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of the claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 USC § 102, on prima facie obviousness" under 35 USC § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products." In re Best, 562 F2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-4 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 26 Denki teaches a bonded body wherein a layer of adhesive made according to the composition if Denki is adhered between substrates and cured, the adhesive further described as being easily dismantlable (para [0045]).
The composition of Denki includes a bifunctional (meth)acrylate monomer identified as component (B), such as 1,3-butylene glycol di(meth) acrylate (para [0024]), i.e., a (meth)acrylate not having a cyclic structure, i.e., component (A) of claim 1.
The composition of Denki further includes a component identified as (A) that is preferably bifunctional, having two (meth)acryloyl groups (para [0018]) and having a cyclic structure (paras [0018]-[0021], examples of which include bis-A type epoxy (meth)acrylates, such as 2,2-bis (4-(methacryloxy-ethoxy)phenyl) propane (para [0021]).
The composition of Denki further includes a photo radical polymerization initiator as component D (para [0028] teaching two examples), thus disclosing component (C) of claim 1.
Regarding the recitation of "wherein the adhesive for temporary bonding is cured with light having a wavelength of 350 nm or more," Denki discloses irradiating with light at a wavelength of 365 nm to bond the substrates together (para [0045]).
Regarding the final recitation of "and the substrate is released by laser light having a wavelength of less than 385 nm," please see the Section 112 rejection of the claim. This limitation is a method step performed on the bonded body that does not further limit the bonded body. In order to advance prosecution, on the merits, Denki discloses irradiating with light having at a wavelength of 365 nm to generate radicals from the unreacted (C) component, causing curing distortion and reducing the bonded area and the bond strength, so that the bonded body can be disassembled (para [0045]).
Regarding claim 29, the recitation of "whose application is UV laser release" is a statement of future use that does not further limit product claim 29 that depends from product claim 20, both directed to an adhesive, not a method of use.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 12-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Shimada.
Regarding claim 12, Shimada teaches that the polymerization initiator of Shimada is present in a range of 0.1 to 5.0 mass % based on a total amount of 100 mass% of the composition (para [0022]). Thus, when the composition of Shimada includes only components (A) and (B), the range taught in Shimada falls within or overlaps the range recited in claim 12. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 13, Shimada teaches the content of other methacrylates may be 30 mass % or less (para [0018]). Thus, when the composition of Shimada includes only component (A) as the other methacrylate and component (B) as the alicyclic structure of Shimada, the content would be a range of 0 – 30% of component (A) and 100% - 70% of component (A), such range understood to overlap and thus render obvious the recited ratio of (A) to (B) of 5 to 95 : 5 to 95.
Regarding claim 15, please see the rejection of claim 13 above, the discussion of which is incorporated herein. When the composition of Shimada includes components (A), (B) and (E), the content of the combination of components (A) and (E) would be in a range of 0 – 30%, thus the content of (E) would range from 0 to less than 30%, such range overlapping and thus rendering obvious the range recited in claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, Shimada discloses that its composition may include only one type of alicyclic bifunctional (meth)acrylate (para [0015]), i.e., component (B), or include "on or more types of other (meth)acrylates" (para [0018]), thus teaching that a composition according to Shimada may be made up of only component (A) and component (B) and thus not comprise any other (meth)acrylate as required by claim 16 .
Regarding claim 17, Shimada teaches its composition may further include additives such as a leveling agent for improving coating suitability of the composition (para [0021]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the claims of the invention to therefore modify the composition of Shimada to include a polymeric leveling agent for the advantage of improving coating suitability, since polymeric leveling agents, particularly polyacrylates and polymethacrylates are known as suitable leveling agents for methacrylate coatings.
Regarding claim 18, Shimada is silent as to an amount of leveling agent. However, it is known to provide leveling agents in small amounts and the recited amount is therefore considered arbitrary and therefore obvious. Applicant must show that this requirement is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 19, Shimada is silent as to the viscosity of the composition of Shimada. However, the claimed materials are the same and presumed to therefore have the same properties. The burden is shifted to the applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP Sections 2112-2112.02. The courts have held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of the claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 USC § 102, on prima facie obviousness" under 35 USC § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products." In re Best, 562 F2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-4 (CCPA 1977).
Claims 12-13, 15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Denki.
Regarding claim 12, Denki teaches it is preferable to contain 0.1 to 30 parts by mass of component (D) photopolymerization initiator per 100 parts by mass of total (meth)acrylate components (para 0016 at page 8), such range overlapping and thus rendering obvious the recited range of 0.01 to 5 parts by mass of the component (C) based on100 parts by mass of the total amount of the components (A) and (B).
Regarding claim 13, Denki teaches a ratio of its bifunctional (meth)acrylate not having a cyclic structure (B) to bifunctional (meth)acrylate having a cyclic structure (A) of approximately 50:50 at para [0016], page 8, a ratio falling within/overlapping the recited ratio, thus rendering obvious the recited ratio.
Regarding claim15, Denki teaches it's monofunctional (meth)acrylate (C) is at 40 to 80 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the total of (meth)acrylate components (para [0016] at page 8), such range overlapping and thus rendering obvious the range recited in claim 15 of more than 0 parts by mass and 50 parts by mass or less of the component (E) based on the total 100 parts by mass of the components (A) and (B).
Regarding claim 18, Denki teaches its water-absorbing polymer (E) is preferably 0.1 to 30 parts by mass per 100 parts of the total of (meth)acrylate components (para [0035]), such range overlapping and thus rendering obvious the recited range of more than 0 parts by mass and 50 parts by mass or less based on the total 100 parts by mass of the components (A) and (B).
Regarding claim 19, Denki is silent as to the viscosity of the composition of Denki. However, the claimed materials are the same and presumed to therefore have the same properties. The burden is shifted to the applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP Sections 2112-2112.02. The courts have held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of the claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 USC § 102, on prima facie obviousness" under 35 USC § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products." In re Best, 562 F2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-4 (CCPA 1977).
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denki as applied to claim 20 and further in view of Goto et al, US 2013/0092326, made of record by Applicant.
Regarding claims 27 and 28, Denki discloses that its adhesive may be used in a high temperature atmosphere, for example, in a method for depositing thin electrically conductive and optically transparent films (e.g., ITO films) onto substrates (para [0048]). Denki further teaches the substrates may include quartz, glass and plastic (para [0050]).
A method according to Denki includes the steps of:
applying an adhesive according to Denki between two substrates (para [0045]), i.e., as a single layer of adhesive in the resulting bonded body;
irradiating with light at a wavelength of 365 nm (i.e., between 350 nm and 700 nm) to cure the adhesive and bond the substrates together (para [0045]); and
irradiating with light having at a wavelength of 365 nm (i.e., less than 385 nm) to generate radicals from the unreacted (C) component, causing curing distortion and reducing the bonded area and the bond strength, so that the bonded body can be disassembled (para [0045]).
Denki is silent as to substrates being bonded being a semiconductor wafer substrate and a support member and thus, also silent that the method is for producing a semiconductor wafer. Denki teaches any known energy irradiation source can be used (para [0046]), but does not explicitly teach using a laser.
Goto teaches a method for separating a bonded body that includes irradiating with light with a central wavelength of 1 to 300 nm (Abstract), i.e., less than 385 nm. The adhesive used to prepare the bonded body is formed by one type or two or more types of (meth)acrylate that have on or more (meth)acryloyl groups, the adhesive further including a radical photopolymerization initiator, including phosphine oxides (Abstract and paras [0050]-[0062]). Bonded parts according to Goto include optical lenses and silicon wafers (para [0087]). Goto further teaches excimer light used to irradiate the bonded part is not particularly limited as long as the center wavelength of the light source is in a range of 1 to 300 nm, the light source being for example a lamp or a laser (paras [0080]-[0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the claims of the invention to modify the method of Denki to utilize the adhesive of Denki on a semiconductor wafer in a method of bonding such wafer to another substrate, and to further utilize a laser for applying light at between 1 and 300 nm as taught by Goto for debonding the wafer from the substrate, as a predictable and suitable use for the acrylic adhesive of Denki. It has been held that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. MPEP 2141 discussing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31 and 32 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.
Claims 30 and 33-36 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Regarding claim 30 (and 33-34 that depend therefrom), if claim 30 is amended to clearly recite that the first cured layer is obtained by curing the composition according to claim 1, such claim would be allowable as Shimada, although teaching the inclusion of a UV absorber in its composition, does not teach or suggest providing a UV absorber in a separate, second layer of a cured body. Furthermore, neither Shimada, Denki, nor the other prior art of record teach or suggest a component concentration distribution that varies in the thickness direction as recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 31, neither Shimada, Denki, nor the other prior art of record teach or suggest a cured body that includes a second cured layer that is a UV absorber located on the first cured layer and wherein a component concentration distribution varies in the thickness direction.
Regarding claim 32, neither Shimada, Denki, nor the other prior art of record teach or suggest a cured body having a second light heat converting cured layer.
Regarding claim 35, if this claim is amended to clearly recite that the composition applied to the wafer is the composition according to claim 1, such claim would be allowable as neither Shimada, Denki or the other prior art of record teach or suggest a method that includes the step of applying the composition according to claim 2 on the partially cured composition according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 36, if this claim is amended to clearly recite that the composition applied to a wafer is the composition according to claim 1, such claim would be allowable as neither Shimada, Denki or the other prior art of record teach or suggest a method that includes the step of applying the composition according to claim 2 on a transparent substrate followed by a step of firmly attaching faces of the wafer and the transparent substrate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA L SCHALLER whose telephone number is (408)918-7619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 - 4:30.
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, 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.
/CYNTHIA L SCHALLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746