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 § 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, 3-5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Halbritter et al. [US PGPUB 20220216076] (hereinafter Halbritter).
Regarding claim 1, Halbritter teaches a transfer substrate, comprising:
a substrate body (10/11/19, Fig. 3), wherein a side of the substrate body is provided with a protrusion (11/19, Fig. 3) and a groove (region of space between sidewall of protrusion 11/19 extending to the top surface of substrate body 10), and the protrusion alternates with the groove (Fig. 3 –i.e., the protrusion is beside the groove);
a first functional layer (20, Fig. 3), wherein the first functional layer is arranged on the side of the substrate body where the protrusion is formed (Fig. 3), and the first functional layer at least partially overlaps the protrusion along a direction (vertical direction, Fig. 3) perpendicular to a plane (horizontal plane) in which the substrate body extends (Fig. 3); and
a second functional layer (18, Fig. 3) arranged on a side of the first functional layer away from the substrate body (Fig. 3), wherein the second functional layer at least partially overlaps the first functional layer along the direction perpendicular to the plane in which the substrate body extends (Fig. 3), and the second functional layer at least extends from the protrusion to a sidewall of the groove (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Halbritter teaches a transfer substrate according to claim 1, wherein
the protrusion extends along a first direction (z direction (into the paper direction), Fig. 3),
the groove alternates with the protrusion along a second direction (x direction, Fig. 3), and
the first direction and the second direction are parallel to the plane in which the substrate body extends (Fig. 3), and the first direction intersects the second direction (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Halbritter teaches a transfer substrate according wherein
the groove alternates with the protrusion along a first direction and a second direction (x and z direction respectively, Fig. 3), and
the first direction and the second direction are parallel to the plane in which the substrate body extends, and the first direction intersects the second direction (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Halbritter teaches a transfer substrate wherein an included angle between the sidewall of the groove and a bottom of the groove is less than or equal to 90° (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Halbritter teaches a transfer substrate wherein the groove has a width of w in a third direction (Fig. 3, i.e.; width of space between side surface of portion 11 and top surface of portion 10), and the third direction is parallel to the plane in which the substrate body extends (Fig. 3); and
the groove has a depth of h (Fig. 3, i.e., height of portion 19) along the direction perpendicular to the plane in which the substrate body extends (Fig. 3), and h is smaller than w (Fig. 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 6-8 and 10-16 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 17-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 2 is object to because all prior arts of record and related prior arts not of record either singularly or in combination fail to anticipate or render obvious the way the first functional layer is configure nor the viscosity relationship between the first and second functionality layer.
Claims 6 is object to because all prior arts of record and related prior arts not of record either singularly or in combination fail to anticipate or render obvious the claimed arc-shaped shapes.
Claims 7 is object to because all prior arts of record and related prior arts not of record either singularly or in combination fail to anticipate or render obvious the claimed pit and line groove.
Claims 8 is object to because of its dependency on claim 7.
Claims 10 is object to because all prior arts of record and related prior arts not of record either singularly or in combination fail to anticipate or render obvious the claimed h/w ratio.
Claims 11 is object to because all prior arts of record and related prior arts not of record either singularly or in combination fail to anticipate or render obvious the claimed dimensions.
Claims 12 is object to because all prior arts of record and related prior arts not of record either singularly or in combination fail to anticipate or render obvious the claimed width relationship.
Claims 13 is object to because of its dependency on claim 12.
Claims 14 is object to because all prior arts of record and related prior arts not of record either singularly or in combination fail to anticipate or render obvious the claimed first part overlapping the protrusion, the second part overlapping the groove, and the first part being thicker than the second part.
Claims 15 is object to because all prior arts of record and related prior arts not of record either singularly or in combination fail to anticipate or render obvious the claimed the first part overlapping the protrusion and the hollow part overlapping the groove.
Claims 16 is object to because all prior arts of record and related prior arts not of record either singularly or in combination fail to anticipate or render obvious the claimed third part overlapping the protrusion, the fourth part overlapping the groove, and the third part being thinner than the fourth part.
Claims 17-20 are allowable because all prior arts of record and related prior arts not of record either singularly or in combination fail to anticipate or render obvious a transfer substrate, comprising:
attaching the microdevice onto a side of the second functional layer away from the first functional layer corresponding to the protrusion, wherein the first functional layer is in a first state and has a volume of V1;
applying, from a side of the substrate body away from the microdevice, laser to the first functional layer corresponding to the protrusion to switch a state of the first functional layer to a second state, wherein the volume of the first functional layer in the second state is V2, V2 is greater than V1, and the second functional layer protrudes towards a side away from the protrusion, (as claimed in claim 17), in combination with the rest of claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
.
Prior Art
Made of record are prior art(s) disclosing similar inventive concept as the current application.
Marinov [US PGPUB 20230107245] being the closest prior art to the inventive method of claims 17-20, discloses a similar method as that of the claimed invention except for transfer method utilizes the changing of gas volume to transfer devices. The structural features Marinov’s transfer device is also not similar to that of the claim.
Chaji et al. [US PGPUB 20200013662] being the closest prior art to the inventive method of claims 17-20, discloses a similar method as that of the claimed invention except for transfer method utilizes the changing of the volume an electroactive polymer (Fig. 22) to transfer devices. However, voltage is applied to achieve the volume change instead of laser. The structural features Chaji’s transfer device is also not similar to that of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAIL A MUSE whose telephone number is (571)272-1470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, William Partridge can be reached at (571)270-1402. 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.
/ISMAIL A MUSE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812