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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-9 and 14-18 in the reply filed on 01/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/02/2026.
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 3 further limits claim 2 by reciting “wherein lower surfaces of the plurality of first protrusions of the stamp structure constitute one flat surface”. However, it is unclear how “lower surfaces” relates to the “first surface” and “second surface opposite the first surface”. It appears “lower surfaces” is equivalent to the “second surface” (see para 0058 of Applicant’s specification as published). For the purposes of examination, the term “lower surfaces” is interpreted as “second surfaces”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by An (WO2021085756A1 – references are directed to US20240030382A1 which is used as a translation).
In reference to claim 1:
An discloses a stamp donor plate (para 0041, Fig. 1, numeral 100) comprising:
a stamp donor plate substrate including an inner area and an outer area surrounding the inner area (Fig. 1); and
a stamp structure disposed on the stamp donor plate substrate (Figs. 1-2B),
wherein the stamp structure includes a plurality of protrusions including a plurality of first protrusions arranged on the inner area (Fig. 1 numeral 131) and a plurality of second protrusions arranged on the outer area (Fig. 1 numeral 132).
In reference to claim 5:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, An further discloses:
a first air flow passage defined between adjacent ones of the plurality of first protrusions (Fig. 1 showing the space between first protrusions 131); and
a second air flow passage defined between adjacent ones of the plurality of second protrusions (Fig. 1 showing the space between second protrusions 132).
In reference to claim 7:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, An further discloses wherein each of the plurality of protrusions includes a first surface in contact with the stamp donor plate substrate and a second surface opposite the first surface (Fig. 2A), and
wherein the stamp donor plate includes an air flow lane defined on the second surface (Fig. 2A).
In reference to claim 9:
In addition to the discussion of claim 7, above, An does not explicitly disclose wherein the air flow lane has a width smaller than a width of the light-emitting element. However, “[e]xpressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” See In re Young, 75 F.2d *>996<, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)) (see MPEP § 2115). As applied to the instant application, the limitation “wherein the air flow lane has a width smaller than a width of the light-emitting element” relates the dimensions of the air flow lane to a width of a light-emitting element intended to be processed by the apparatus. As such, An discloses the positively recited structural limitations and would be capable of having the intended dimensions relative to an intended light-emitting element.
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.
Claim(s) 6, 14, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over An.
In reference to claim 6:
In addition to the discussion of claim 5, above, it is the Examiner’s first position that An further discloses wherein the first air flow passage and the second air flow passage have different widths, and wherein the second air flow passage has a width larger than a width of the first air flow passage (Fig. 1 showing the first air flow passage between the rectangular protrusions of the inner area having a first spacing and the spacing between the square protrusions around the alignment marks having a second spacing with a width larger than the first spacing which meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. See MPEP 2111).
It is the Examiner’s second position that in the event An does not explicitly disclose wherein the first air flow passage and the second air flow passage have different widths, and wherein the second air flow passage has a width larger than a width of the first air flow passage, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to that skilled artisan to modify the spacing because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV).
In reference to claim 14:
An discloses a stamp donor plate (para 0041, Fig. 1, numeral 100) comprising:
a stamp donor plate substrate including an inner area and an outer area surrounding the inner area (Fig. 1); and
a stamp structure disposed on the stamp donor plate substrate (Figs. 1-2B),
wherein the stamp donor plate includes an inner area and an outer area (Fig. 1),
wherein the stamp structure includes a plurality of first protrusions arranged on the inner area (Fig. 1 numeral 131) and a plurality of second protrusions arranged on the outer area (Fig. 1 numeral 132),
wherein a first air flow passage is formed between adjacent ones of the plurality of first protrusions (Fig. 1 showing a gap between different first protrusions 131), and a second air flow passage is formed between adjacent ones of the plurality of second protrusions (Fig. 1 showing a gap between different second protrusions 132).
Further, it is the Examiner’s first position that An further discloses wherein a cross-sectional area of the second air flow passage is larger than a cross-sectional area of the first air flow passage (Fig. 1 showing the first air flow passage between the rectangular protrusions of the inner area having a first spacing and the spacing between the square protrusions around the alignment marks having a second spacing with a width larger than the first spacing which meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. See MPEP 2111).
It is the Examiner’s second position that in the event An does not explicitly disclose wherein a cross-sectional area of the second air flow passage is larger than a cross-sectional area of the first air flow passage, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to that skilled artisan to modify the spacing because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV).
In reference to claim 15:
In addition to the discussion of claim 14, above, An further discloses wherein each of the plurality of protrusions has a first surface in contact with the stamp donor plate substrate and a second surface opposite to the first surface (Fig. 2A-2B).
In reference to claim 17:
In addition to the discussion of claim 15, above, An further discloses wherein the stamp donor plate includes an air flow lane defined on the second surface ((Fig. 1 showing the space between first protrusions 131 and between second protrusions 132).
Claim(s) 8, 16, AND 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An as applied to claims 7, 14, and 15, above, and further in view of Menard (US20100123268A1).
In reference to claim 8:
In addition to the discussion of claim 7, above, An does not disclose wherein the air flow lane has a V-shaped groove extending along one direction of the stamp donor plate substrate. However, the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). As applied to the instant application, Menard teaches a stamp substrate for transferring semiconductor devices (abstract, para 0061, Fig. 1). Menard further teaches wherein the protrusions can have various shapes such as quadrangular (Fig. 2B leftmost shape) or trapezoidal (Fig. 2 third shape from the left). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the trapezoidal protrusion of Menard for the polygonal shape of An because both are known in the art for the intended purpose and the combination yields predictable results, e.g. the protrusions have an acceptable shape and the air flow lane will have a v-shaped groove.
In reference to claim 16:
In addition to the discussion of claim 2, above, An further discloses wherein each of the first protrusion and the second protrusion has a polygonal shape (para 0061) but does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the first protrusion and the second protrusion has a trapezoidal cross-section. However, the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). As applied to the instant application, Menard teaches a stamp substrate for transferring semiconductor devices (abstract, para 0061, Fig. 1). Menard further teaches wherein the protrusions can have various shapes such as quadrangular (Fig. 2B leftmost shape) or trapezoidal (Fig. 2 third shape from the left). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the trapezoidal protrusion of Menard for the polygonal shape of An because both are known in the art for the intended purpose and the combination yields predictable results, e.g. the protrusions have an acceptable shape.
In reference to claim 18:
In addition to the discussion of claim 7, above, An does not disclose wherein the air flow lane has a V-shaped groove extending along one direction of the stamp donor plate substrate. However, the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). As applied to the instant application, Menard teaches a stamp substrate for transferring semiconductor devices (abstract, para 0061, Fig. 1). Menard further teaches wherein the protrusions can have various shapes such as quadrangular (Fig. 2B leftmost shape) or trapezoidal (Fig. 2 third shape from the left). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the trapezoidal protrusion of Menard for the polygonal shape of An because both are known in the art for the intended purpose and the combination yields predictable results, e.g. the protrusions have an acceptable shape and the air flow lane will have a v-shaped groove.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 4 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.
Claim 3 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:
After search the prior art regarded as nearest the claimed invention is An (WO2021085756A1 – references are directed to US20240030382A1 which is used as a translation). An discloses a stamp donor plate (para 0041, Fig. 1, numeral 100) comprising: a stamp donor plate substrate including an inner area and an outer area surrounding the inner area (Fig. 1); and a stamp structure disposed on the stamp donor plate substrate (Figs. 1-2B), wherein the stamp structure includes a plurality of protrusions including a plurality of first protrusions arranged on the inner area (Fig. 1 numeral 131) and a plurality of second protrusions arranged on the outer area (Fig. 1 numeral 132). An fails to disclose wherein each of the plurality of protrusions has a first surface in contact with the stamp donor plate substrate and a second surface opposite to the first surface, wherein a width of the second surface is larger than a width of the first surface, and wherein the second surface of the protrusions adjacent to each other contact each other at a boundary therebetween. The Office is unable to discern a reasonable rationale from the prior art that such features are taught, suggested, or otherwise rendered obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang (US20230238473A1).
Kang (US20240258265A1).
Yang (US20140130691A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW L SWANSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1724. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 0800-1900 and every other Friday 0800-1600.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/ANDREW L SWANSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 1745