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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group I, drawn to claims 1-8 in the reply filed on January 10, 2024 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claimed limitation “wherein the protective layer comprises a material that does not chemically react to the solution” lacks sufficient support in the written description - any material except a noble gas could react with any solution in various environmental conditions over time. The specific examples of materials that may be included in the protective layer are disclosed in paragraph [0017] of the specification: “the protective layer may include at least one of silk, photoresist, polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), Teflon, or parylene”, while the written description is silent regarding the composition of the claimed solution. The materials disclosed here for the protective layer are chemically reactive to some degree in a normal environment: silk breaks down with exposure to air by the silk peptides chemically reacting, for example, with oxygen or water vapor in air; parylene, Teflon, and PDMS breakdown with air in combination with heat or light exposure; and photoresist oxidizes easily in air. It would not be possible for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to fabricate, according to the written description of the specification, a protective layer having the claimed characteristic of not ever chemically reacting with an unspecified solution, without undue experimentation, if at all. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be taken to mean “wherein the protective layer comprises a material that does not rapidly react chemically with the solution in normal environmental conditions.”
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, 2, and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ahn et al. US 20220223754.
Regarding claim 1, Ahn discloses
a wiper (the transfer head 1””, as described in paragraph [0109 and 0282] and shown in figure 7) comprising an absorber (1101 and 1102 in figure 7, described in paragraph [0271-0272]) configured to absorb a solution (here air is the solution [0025], but this absorber, since it comprises paper, is configured to absorb liquid solutions as well) used to wet transfer a micro semiconductor chip (see [0271]);
and a protective layer provided on the absorber (blocking portion 1103 is a protective layer [0280]),
wherein the protective layer comprises a material that does not chemically react to the solution (paragraph [0280 discloses that the protective layer may be formed of a material blocking of exertion of the electrostatic force, examples of which are metals or some ESD materials, such as stainless steel or parylene - both are highly corrosion
resistant, and thus do not react rapidly with the solution, air).
Regarding claim 2, Ahn discloses the wiper of claim 1, wherein the absorber comprises one of fabric, tissue, polyester fiber, or paper (paragraph [0137] discloses that the absorber 1101 and 1102, comprising 1101 (see figure 7), may be formed of paper).
Regarding claim 4, Ahn discloses the wiper of claim 1, wherein the protective layer is configured to prevent the micro semiconductor chip from penetrating into the absorber (paragraphs [0280 and 0281] describe how the layer 1103 is configured to prevent the micro-LED from being absorbed into the absorber itself).
Regarding claim 5, Ahn discloses the wiper of claim 1, wherein the protective layer is configured to be removed by acetone (H2SO4/ KOH/NaOH/toluene) or (ethanol/acetone) or removed by plasma etching (the protective layer of claim 1 may be formed of a material blocking of exertion of the electrostatic force, examples of which are metals or some ESD materials, such as parylene, all of which are able to be removed by plasma etching, and, therefore, read on the ‘configured to’ language).
Regarding claim 6, Ahn discloses the wiper of claim 1, further comprising a support configured to support the absorber, wherein the absorber is provided on the support (paragraph [0119] and figure 7 disclose that support member 1200 supports 1101 and 1102).
Regarding claim 7, Ahn discloses the wiper of claim 1, wherein the protective layer is coated on the absorber (This is a product by process claim (see MPEP 21130); therefore, as Ahn discloses the final product, the protective layer 1103, being a thin layer, directly contacting the absorber 1101 and 1102 (see figure 7), 1103 is considered a coating for absorber 1102 and 1103).
Regarding claim 8, Ahn discloses the wiper of claim 1, wherein the protective layer is configured to reduce a number of micro semiconductor chips that penetrate into the absorber (paragraph [0280] discloses that layer 1103 blocks the absorption of micro-LEDs by the absorber 1101 and 1102).
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.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn in view of Baker et al. US 20170133292.
Regarding claim 3, Ahn discloses the wiper of claim 1.
Ahn does not disclose that the protective layer comprises at least one of silk, photoresist, polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), Teflon, or parylene.
However, Baker [0038] discloses wherein materials comprising parylene may be used mitigate electrostatic discharges, thus blocking of exertion of the electrostatic force.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to use a material comprising parylene to block the exertion of electrostatic force on the absorber while also enhancing the corrosion resistance of the protective layer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes: Kim et al. 20230197477 from the same assignee and some of the same inventors, within the grace year, also relates to micro-semiconductor chip transfer apparatuses capable of reusing micro-semiconductor chips.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATRINA M H WALJESKI-MOSES whose telephone number is (571)272-0731. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 7:30 am- 5 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, Jeff Natalini can be reached at (571) 272-2266. 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.
/KATRINA WALJESKI-MOSES/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/JEFF W NATALINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights