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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
1. Applicant’s amendment of claim 6 overcomes the 112(b) rejections of the previous Office Action.
2. Applicant argues that the combination of Asakawa and Nakaura do not teach the limitations pertaining to the subject matter of claims 4 and 5 as the plate of Nakaura is mounted while jetting cleaning fluid. This argument is persuasive and the rejections involving Nakaura are withdrawn. However, other prior art was found to address these claim limitations and new rejections are presented below, and this Office Action is made as a second Non-Final.
Claim Interpretation
3. The 112(f) interpretations of the previous Office Action apply to the current list of claims, including the phrases “Support portion”, “Adsorption device”, “Moving portion”, and “Grip device”.
4. Amended claim 6 adds an additional 112(f) interpretation for the term “adsorption portion” in both lines 6 and 7. While such a term is used in claim 1, in claim 1 it is related to the “adsorption device” which already establishes a 112(f) interpretation. “Adsorption” is a function, “portion” is a generic placeholder, and claim 6 does not recite structure to perform the recited function. It should be noted that Applicant simplifies the term “adsorption device” to “adsorption portion” in [0006] of their Specification, in which case the same 112(f) interpretation is applicable- a suction pad as depicted in Figure 4 and equivalents. This interpretation does not affect the allowability of claim 6.
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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asakawa (US 2015/0258767; previously presented) in view of Eguchi et al. (US 2009/0017599; hereafter known as Eguchi).
Regarding claim 1, Asakawa teaches a peeling method using a peeling device (title) that comprises locating a stack structure (shown in Figure 2b) comprising a base layer (combined process substrate- PS and device- DV layers) extending in a first direction (which is horizontal), and a film (carrier substrate- CS) coupled with a lower surface of the base layer ([0059]). The upper layer of the base layer is adsorbed by an adsorption portion (holder part- HDP; [0067]) and the adsorption portion is moved by a moving portion (operator part- OPP) to allow the base layer to be bent to a second direction crossing the first direction and to be peeled off from the film (Figures 3 and 4 show the base layer being bent in a second direction that in Figure 4 goes past 90 degrees from horizontal, therefore it crosses the first direction).
Asakawa does not teach the inclusion of a peeling tank and associated limitations. Eguchi teaches an immersion technique in one embodiment ([0141]-[[0147], see Figures 23 and 24) wherein a base layer (element formation layer- 102) is being peeled from a film (release layer- 101) on the bottom side of the base layer (See Figures 23 and 24) while on a support portion (unlabeled flat bottom of tank as seen in Figures 23 and 24) in a peeling tank (container- 140) containing a first solution (liquid- 116). The advantage of so doing is the elimination of static electricity while peeling ([0147]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to include the immersion technique of Eguchi in the method of Asakawa for the elimination of static electricity while peeling.
Asakawa does not teach the method step of spraying a second solution and associated limitations. Eguchi teaches a technique in one embodiment ([0134]-[0139]) of spraying a solution (liquid- 116) to a peeling area of lower surface of a base layer (element formation layer- 102) and of a film (release layer- 101) through a first nozzle facing the peeling area of the lower surface when the base layer is bent (spray means- 130; spraying with bent base layer shown in Figures 21 and 22). The advantage of so doing is the elimination of damage due to static discharge ([0138]-[0139]). The liquid of this embodiment is the same as the embodiment of for Eguchi’s peeling tank and therefore the second solution would be the same as the first solution of the combined apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to include the technique of spraying a fluid while peeling for the advantage of eliminating damage due to static discharge.
Regarding claim 8, it is noted in Asakawa that the adsorption portion is moved by the moving portion during peeling ([0068]). In moving the adsorption portion, it inherently moves from a first position to a second position.
Regarding claim 9, Asakawa teaches that the base layer comprises glass ([0013]) that is defined as having a thin thickness ([0047]) and therefore comprises a thin film glass substrate.
7. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asakawa and Eguchi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanaka et al. (US 5,772,842; hereafter known as Tanaka).
Regarding claim 2, in applying Eguchi as in claim 1, Eguchi teaches that the solution can be water ([0023]), but does not teach that the water is between 50°C to about 90°C. Tanaka teaches that when peeling a film in water, for working efficiency it is preferable the water is at a temperature between 70° C-100°C (col. 3 lines 25-40). This range overlaps Applicant’s claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to have the water of Eguchi in the temperature range of Tanaka for the advantage of working efficiency. It is noted that a claimed range which overlaps, lies within, or is near a prior art range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness for using values in the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claim 5 is 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.
9. Claims 6-7 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 5, Eguchi teaches that liquid can be supplied at any point of peeling, and that such can be done by broadly defined injection means ([0090]), and such broad injection means could include a second nozzle (which while unmentioned could be rendered obvious by the MPEP 2144.04.VI.B- “Duplication of Parts” supporting legal rationale). This second nozzle would be spraying a third solution, which would be the same as the second solution of the first nozzle, which would be the first solution of the tank. However, Eguchi does not teach or render obvious applying a third solution to the upper surface of the base layer.
Regarding claim 6, the closest prior art is Asakawa. Asakawa teaches a peeling method using a peeling device (title) that comprises locating a stack structure (shown in Figure 2b) comprising a base layer (combined process substrate- PS and device- DV layers) extending in a first direction (which is horizontal), and a film (carrier substrate- CS; [0059]). The base layer is adsorbed by an adsorption portion (holder part- HDP; [0067]) and the adsorption portion is moved by a moving portion (operator part- OPP) to allow the base layer to be bent to a second direction crossing the first direction and to be peeled off from the film (Figures 3 and 4 show the base layer being bent in a second direction that in Figure 4 goes past 90 degrees from horizontal, therefore it crosses the first direction).
Asakawa does not teach the inclusion of a peeling tank and associated limitations. Asakawa does not teach spraying a second solution and associated limitations.
Asakawa does teach that the film can be an adhesive ([0013]-[0014]; epoxy resin is a form of adhesive), however, Asakawa does not teach or render obvious the combined limitations of a second base layer, wherein the film comprises an adhesive film coupled with the second base layer.
10. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER S WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571) 272-8343. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30am-5:00 pm EST.
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, Philip Tucker can be reached on 571-273-1095. 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.
/ALEXANDER S WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/ALEX B EFTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745