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 1 is amended. Claims 21 and 22 are newly amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-5, filed 10/09/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claim(s) 1 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ikai (US 20200361807) and Luettgens (US 20030145624) .
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-13, 15-18, 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikai (US 20200361807) listed in IDS in view of Luettgens (US 20030145624).
Regarding Claim1 Ikai discloses a method for processing a two-dimensional substrate, comprising: mounting the substrate on a substrate carrier (Figure 3 substrate-G1, carrier-22,23), the substrate having an action zone (zone-25), an equalization zone (26a,26b,26c), a usable area, and a waste area (Figure annotated); subjecting the action zone to a force acting in a direction towards the substrate carrier (Figure 3 showing the force acting on the substrate) without subjecting the equalization/compensation zone to the force to form a temporary deformation in the substrate in a region of the equalizing zone (Figure 5 showing a deformation on the equalization zone-26b); and performing a pre-separation process on the substrate while subjecting the action zone to the force (Figure 5, [0047], pass/separation line PL).
PNG
media_image1.png
468
954
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further re: the limitation that the substrate is brought closer to the substrate carrier in the region of the action locally fixes the action zone to the substrate carrier, Ikai didn’t specific teach that the region of the action locally fixes the action zone to the substrate carrier. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art , Luettgens discloses that the region of the action locally fixes the action zone to the substrate carrier, (Figure 3, action zone-200, substrate -1 on a table--202, [0041]).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teaching of Ikai with that of the action zone separately fixed to the substrate for the purpose of proper alignment of the action zone with that of the substrate ([0001], Luettgens)
Regarding Claim 2 Ikai discloses wherein the usable area has a thickness less than 100 micron and the waste area has a thickness that is greater at least by a factor of 2 than the thickness of the usable area (Figure 3 and 4, [0044], [0046], [0048]; W, the width/thickness of the surface plate is equal to the width/thickness of waste area and the width/thickness of the useable area is Wa).
Regarding Claim 3, IKai discloses wherein the waste area comprises a peripheral region of the substrate extending along an edge of the substrate (Figure 3 , annotated).
Regarding claim 4, Ikai discloses wherein the substrate has a length greater than 100 mm and a width greater than 100 mm ([0044]; the values specified in Ikai for length and width of the substrate plate meets the length range but not the width of the plate; however Ikai discloses that the width of the substrate plate is not limited to the range; however it would be obvious for to select the desired width of the plate based on the shape of the glass substrate, SEE MPEP 2131.03 III ).
Regarding Claim 5, IKai discloses, wherein the substrate has a surface area greater than 0.01 m2 ([0044]; the values specified in Ikai for length and width of the substrate plate meets the discloses area in the claim).
Regarding Claim 6 Ikai discloses a method for processing a two-dimensional substrate, comprising: mounting the substrate on a substrate carrier (Figure 3 substrate-G1, carrier-22,23), the substrate having an action zone (zone-25), a usable area, and a waste area (Figure annotated above), further Ikai discloses that the length of the substrate and width of the substrate which results in 80X30 =2400 mm2 ([0044]) and the length and width of the active zone results in the surface area to be 80X3= 240 mm2 ([0046]); therefore action zone being smaller than smaller than 40% of the substarte area
Further, Ikai discloses the equalization/compensation zones (26a, 26b, 26c , by calculation of the surface area from para [0046]-[0050]; the equalization surface area is 290X 135 =39150 mm2 ; the substrate area is 2400 mm2 as mentioned above ; therefore the equalization zone being 16.3% larger than the substrate area. Ikai didn’t particularly disclose that the claimed range is larger than the 20% of the surface area of the substrate ; though it would be obvious for to select the desired area of the substrate as Ikai discloses that the length and width are not limited to these parameters based on the shape of the substrate , and then adjust the equalization zones surface area accordingly to achieve the claimed result, SEE MPEP 2131.03 III
Further, action zone comprising at least a portion of the waste area and a portion of the usable area, the action zone comprising a strip that extends along a length of the substrate, and the action zone comprising a strip that extends along a border of the substrate (Figure 4, action zone-25).
Regarding Claim 7 IKai discloses the step of subjecting the action zone to the force comprises a step selected from a group consisting of: applying a pressure at a surface of the substrate facing the substrate carrier through the substrate carrier, electrostatic charging of the substrate (Figure 3, [0007]’ L applying the radiation pressure).
Regarding Claim 9 IKai discloses wherein the step of performing the pre-separation process comprises forming areas of damage in the substrate next to one another and spaced apart from one another along a separation line (Figure 3-4, forming arears of damage-O).
Regarding Claim 10 IKai discloses , wherein the separation line extends at least in part within the action zone (Figure 5, [0047], pass line PL).
Regarding Claim 11, IKai discloses wherein the separation line separates the waste area from the usable area (Figure 5; area above the pass line -PL is the usable area ).
Regarding Claim 12, IKai discloses wherein the step of forming areas of damage comprises introducing laser radiation into the substrate in the action zone to form areas of damage in the substrate next to one another and spaced apart from one another along a separation line (Figure 3-4, forming arears of damage-O, [0066]-[0067]).
Regarding Claim 13, IKai discloses wherein the step of forming areas of damage comprises using pulsed laser radiation of an ultrashort pulse laser to form of areas of filamentary damage in the substrate along a separation line (Figure 3,5, [0007]; pass/separation line PL).
Regarding Claim 15, IKai discloses, wherein the separation line extends next to an edge of the substrate (Figure 5, [0047], pass line PL) such that a peripheral region of the substrate can be removed along the separation line ([0032], G2 is obtained by cutting the portion after it comes out of the deformation process).
Regarding Claim 16, IKai discloses, wherein the step of subjecting the action zone to the force comprises subjecting a plurality of action zones to the force at separate times or simultaneously (Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 17, IKai discloses further comprising separating the substrate along the separation line ( Figure 5, [0047], pass/separation line PL).
Regarding Claim 18, IKai discloses, wherein the step of separating the substrate comprises applying a separation force in the usable area in the direction towards the substrate carrier (Figure 3, [0043]-[0045]).
Regarding Claim 21, Ikai/Leuttgens disclose method for processing a two-dimensional substrate, comprising: mounting the substrate on a substrate carrier (Figure 3 substrate-G1, carrier-22,23), the substrate having an action zone (zone-25), an equalization zone (26a,26b,26c) , a usable area, and a waste area (Figure annotated above); subjecting the action zone to a force acting in a direction towards the substrate carrier (Figure 3 showing the force acting on the substrate ) wherein the equalization zone is in a middle of the substrate and is not subjected to the force that brings the substrate closer to the substrate carrier (Figure 4, 26b is in the middle of the substarte-G); and performing a pre-separation process on the substrate while subjecting the action zone to the force (Figure 5, [0047], PL ). Luettgens disclose that the substrate is brought closer to the substrate carrier in the region of the action zone (Figure 5, action zone-200, substrate-202, [0041]).
Regarding Claim 22 Ikai discloses method for processing a two-dimensional substrate (Figure 3 substrate-G1, carrier-22,23), comprising: mounting the substrate on a substrate carrier, the substrate having an action zone (zone-25), an equalization zone (26a, 26b, 26c), a usable area, and a waste area (Figure annotated ); subjecting the action zone to a force acting in a direction towards the substrate carrier such that the force causes local flattening of the action zone on the substrate carrier (Figure 3 showing the force acting on the substrate); and performing a pre-separation process on the substrate while subjecting the action zone to the force (Figure 5, action zone-200, substrate-202, [0041).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikai (US 20200361807) and in view of Leuttgens (US 20030145624) as applied in Claim 1 further in view of Abramov (Us 20130323469)
Regarding claim 8, Ikai discloses comprising a step selected from a group consisting of: maintaining a maximum distance between the substrate carrier and the substrate in the action zone of less than 1 mm during the step of subjecting the action zone to the force (Figure 4, [0047], the distance-W2 meets the claim range). Further, Ikai discloses applying a pressure at a surface of the substrate facing the substrate carrier through the substrate carrier, electrostatic charging of the substrate (Figure 3, [0007]’ L applying the radiation pressure) but did not disclose that maintaining a the amount of maximum tensile stress in the substrate.
In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Abramov discloses that the tensile stress is between 20-30 MPa for the laser using the laser beam ([0013], [0046], Claim 20).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teaching of Ikai with that of desired tensile stress form Abramov for the purpose of deforming the usable area before it is cut out to form the glass substrate.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikai (US 20200361807) and in view of Leuttgens (US 20030145624) as applied in Claim 9 further in view of Brown (US 20180044218).
Regarding Claim 14 Ikai discloses forming areas of damage in the substrate next to one another and spaced apart from one another along a separation line (Figure 3-4, forming arears of damage-O) but didn’t disclose that areas of damage comprises using a scribing wheel or a needle to introduce damage into the action zone along a separation line. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Brown discloses that scoring/weakening involves wheel scriber ([0086]).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to modify Ikai’s teaching with that of Brown’s wheel scriber for the purpose of easier to break when the pressure is applied.
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 DEBJANI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8019. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/DEBJANI ROY/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741