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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-16, in the reply filed on 1/16/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 13 and 16 are 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 13 recites the limitation “the torque” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the torque” and insert therein - - a torque - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the at least one trench-like depression” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the at least one trench-like depression” and insert therein - - the at least one parallel oriented trench-like - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuster (DE 102007039407 and see also the abstract and machine translation) in view of Schwedenberg et al. (U.S. Patent 1,984,159) and optionally further the admitted prior art (see paragraphs 0003-0005 under “BACKGROUND” of the instant specification).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Schuster (Figures 5a-5c and Abstract and Paragraphs 0034, 0037, 0079, 0090, and 0098-0106 of the machine translation) discloses a method for optical contact bonding of components, comprising: placing a first surface of a first component (1) covering and onto a second surface of a second component (2), with air therebetween prior to contacting the surfaces and thereby forming an air film, wherein the placing of the first component is carried out by a mechanical rotary device (see paragraph 0037) considered a robot/device that automatically performs the placing, pressing (at least by further rotating the mechanical rotary device to contact and regarding claim 2 the pressing of the first component is carried out by robot) the first surface of the first component against the second surface of the second component, thereby forming the optical contact bonding of the first component to the second component and generating a laminar gas flow (as an ionized gas stream instead of UV burner 20 see paragraph 0106) between the first surface of the first component and the second surface of the second component.
As to the limitations in claim 1 of “placing a first surface of a first component onto a second surface of a second component, thereby forming an air film, wherein said placing of the first component is carried out by a robot, pressing the first surface of the first component against the second surface of the second component, thereby forming the optical contact bonding of the first component to the second component” and claim 2, as noted above Schuster teaches placing the first surface of the first component (1) covering and onto the second surface of the second component (2), with air therebetween prior to contacting the surfaces and thereby forming an air film, wherein the placing of the first component is carried out by a mechanical rotary device considered a robot, pressing (at least by further rotating to contact) the first surface of the first component against the second surface of the second component, thereby forming the optical contact bonding of the first component to the second component. In the event it is somehow considered Schuster does not necessarily teach one or more of the limitations the following optional rejection is made. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art of optical contact bonding when the first surface of the first component is placed onto the second surface of the second component the first surface “floats” on an air film on the second surface of the second component prior to pressing (the weight force of the first component is generally not sufficient to displace the air film and trigger the actual optical contact bonding process) of the first surface of the first component against the second surface of the second component to effect displacing the air film between the surfaces, such that the two surfaces touch and the actual optical contact bonding process takes place, in which the two surfaces are connected to one another by molecular forces of attraction as evidenced by the admitted prior art (see paragraphs 0003-0005 of the instant specification). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention placing the first surface of the first component onto the second surface of the second component and contacting the first surface of the first component and the second surface of the second component to optically contact bond the surfaces as taught by Schuster comprises placing the first surface of the first component onto the second surface of the second component, thereby forming an air film, and pressing the first surface of the first component against the second surface of the second component, thereby forming the optical contact bonding of the first component to the second component as are the conventional and predictable steps of an actual optical contact bonding process as is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by the admitted prior art wherein the placing and the pressing of the first component is carried out by a robot of a mechanical rotary device automatically rotating the components for placing and further pressing as is taught by Schuster and/or is further prima facie obvious including broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (see MPEP 2144.04 and “III. AUTOMATING A MANUAL ACTIVITY”).
As to the limitation in claim 1 of “generating a laminar gas flow between the first surface of the first component and the second surface of the second component with a ventilation device”, as noted above Schuster teaches generating a laminar gas flow (as an ionized gas stream instead of UV burner 20 see paragraph 0106) between the first surface of the first component and the second surface of the second component. Schuster does not expressly teach the ionized gas stream generated with a ventilation device (i.e. ventilator) wherein it is extremely well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to conventionally and predictably generate an ionized gas stream (of a laminar gas flow) with a fan (9) (i.e. a ventilation device/ventilator) as evidenced by Schwedenberg (Figures 1 and 2 and Column 1, line 1 to Column 2, line 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the UV burner (20) taught by Schuster is replaced with a ventilation device of a fan for generating a laminar gas flow between the first surface of the first component and the second surface of the second component as directed by Schuster wherein a fan is extremely well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to conventionally and predictably generate an ionized gas stream as evidenced by Schwedenberg.
Regarding claims 3-5, Schuster teaches Figures 5a-5c as a view from above so that regarding claim 3 Schuster teaches orienting the second surface of the second component at an angle (α) with respect to a horizontal plane during the placing of the first component, regarding claim 4 the second surface of the second component is oriented vertically with respect to the horizontal plane during the placing of the first component, and regarding claim 5, the laminar gas flow is oriented at an angle (α such as 0o) with respect to a horizontal plane. Further, in the event it is somehow considered Schuster does not necessarily teach one or more of the limitations the following rejection is made wherein it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention orienting for placing and laminar gas flow in Schuster as modified by Schwedenberg and optionally further the admitted prior art comprises orienting the second surface of the second component at an angle (α) with respect to a horizontal plane during the placing of the first component, the second surface of the second component is oriented vertically with respect to the horizontal plane during the placing of the first component, and the laminar gas flow is oriented at an angle (α) with respect to a horizontal plane wherein shifting the position/changing the orientation to that set forth above would not have modified the method for optical contact bonding (see MPEP 2144.04 and “C. Rearrangement of Parts”).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Schuster does not expressly teach detecting an areal abutment of the first surface of the first component against the second surface of the second component. However, as the contacting/areal abutment of the surfaces of the components completes the optical contact bonding process it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention Schuster as modified by Schwedenberg and optionally further the admitted prior art further comprise (at least visually) detecting an areal abutment of the first surface of the first component against the second surface of the second component to cease pressing the components with the mechanical rotary deice and remove the optically contact bonded components from the device (thereby upon ceasing and removing regarding claim 13 minimizing by reducing a torque exerted on the robot by the second component) to complete the optical contact bonding process and yield an optically contact bonded product.
Claims 6-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuster, Schwedenberg, and optionally further the admitted prior art as applied to claims 1-5, 12, and 13 above, and further in view of Fukazawa et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0298522).
Regarding claims 6-12, 14, and 15, Schuster as modified by Schwedenberg and optionally further the admitted prior art above teach all of the limitations in claim 6 except for a specific teaching prior to the placing, bringing a subregion of the first surface of the first component into contact with the second surface of the second component wherein it is not clear from Figures 5a-5c of Schuster the lateral edge of each component contacts prior to placing by the mechanical rotary device. It is well understood in the art of optical contact bonding (regarding claim 6) prior to placing and pressing the whole surfaces, bringing a subregion of the first surface of the first component (1) into contact with the second surface of the second component (2) by (regarding claim 7) the subregion brought in contact with the second surface of the second component comprises a lateral edge of the first surface and (regarding claim 10) the first surface of the first component and the second surface of the second component are oriented at a predefined angle (β) with respect to one another during the contacting of the subregion to (regarding claim 8) (upon at least visually) detecting the contact between the subregion of the first surface and the second surface (and regarding claim 12 at least visually detecting an areal abutment of the first surface of the first component against the second surface of the second component at lateral edges thereof and regarding claim 9 the detecting the contact between the subregion of the first surface and the second surface comprises (an at least visually observed) exerting a torque on the robot by the second component abutting the first component) a temporary bonding can be judged prior to bonding the whole surfaces considered by (regarding claim 11) the first component is rotated (by the mechanical rotary device) about the subregion (about the lateral edge) until the first surface of the first component is placed and then abuts areally against the second surface of the second component wherein the judging of the temporary bond is by (regarding claim 14) detecting an interference fringe pattern of an air film formed between the first and the second surfaces areally abutting against one another (counting the number of interference fringes per length) wherein (regarding claim 15) a placing and pressing position of the whole surfaces, at which the first surface is placed and pressed wholly against the second surface, is defined in dependence on the detected interference fringe pattern (i.e. the temporary bond is acceptable or not and then placing and pressing progresses from one end to the other end side so that existing gas is completely removed) as taught by Fukazawa (Figures 1 and 3 and Paragraphs 0001, 0027, and 0047-0050). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the method taught by Schuster as modified by Schwedenberg and optionally further the admitted prior art further comprise prior to the placing and pressing, bringing a subregion of the first surface of the first component into contact with the second surface of the second component (and further including the subregion brought in contact with the second surface of the second component comprises a lateral edge of the first surface and the first surface of the first component and the second surface of the second component are oriented at a predefined angle (β) with respect to one another during the contacting of the subregion) to (upon at least visually) detecting the contact between the subregion of the first surface and the second surface and (at least visually) detecting an areal abutment of the first surface of the first component against the second surface of the second component at the lateral edges by (at least visually observing) exerting a torque on the robot by the second component abutting the first component a temporary bonding can be judged prior to bonding the whole surfaces (and including by the first component is further rotated (by the mechanical rotary device) about the subregion (about the lateral edge) until the first surface of the first component is placed and then abuts areally against the second surface of the second component) as taught by Fukazawa (and including wherein the judging of the temporary bond is by detecting an interference fringe pattern of an air film formed between the first and the second surfaces areally abutting against one another (counting the number of interference fringes per length) wherein a placing and pressing position of the whole surfaces, at which the first surface is placed and pressed wholly against the second surface, is defined in dependence on the detected interference fringe pattern is acceptable or not and placing and pressing progresses from one end to the other end side so that existing gas is completely removed).
Regarding claim 16, Schuster does not expressly teach at least one parallel-oriented trench-like is formed on the first surface of the first component and/or on the second surface of the second component, and wherein an orientation of the first component during the areal abutment is selected in dependence on the orientation of the interference fringe pattern relative to a longitudinal direction (Y) of the at least one trench-like depression/the at least one parallel oriented trench-like. Schuster does not expressly describe the surfaces of the components wherein it is well understood in the art one of the components comprise at least one parallel-oriented trench-like is formed on the first surface of the first component and/or on the second surface of the second component as a flow channel, and wherein an orientation of the first component during the areal abutment is selected in dependence on the orientation of the interference fringe pattern is perpendicular relative to a longitudinal direction (Y) of the at least one trench-like depression/the at least one parallel oriented trench-like as taught by Fukazawa to let a fluid go through (Figures 3 and 4 and Paragraph 0052-0054). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at least one parallel-oriented trench-like is formed on the first surface of the first component and/or on the second surface of the second component taught by Schuster as modified by Schwedenberg, Fukazawa, and optionally further the admitted prior art and wherein an orientation of the first component during the areal abutment is selected in dependence on the orientation of the interference fringe pattern relative to a longitudinal direction (Y) of the at least one trench-like depression/the at least one parallel oriented trench-like to form a flow channel to let a fluid go through as taught by Fukazawa.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuster in view of Kostner et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0311652) and Schwedenberg and optionally further the admitted prior art.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Schuster (Figures 5a-5c and Paragraphs 0034, 0037, 0079, 0090, and 0098-0106 of the machine translation) discloses a method for optical contact bonding of components, comprising: placing a first surface of a first component (1) covering and onto a second surface of a second component (2), with air therebetween prior to contacting the surfaces and thereby forming an air film, wherein the placing of the first component is carried out by a mechanical rotary device (see paragraph 0037) considered a robot, pressing (at least by further rotating the mechanical rotary device to contact and regarding claim 2 the pressing of the first component is carried out by robot) the first surface of the first component against the second surface of the second component, thereby forming the optical contact bonding of the first component to the second component and generating a laminar gas flow (as an ionized gas stream instead of UV burner 20 see paragraph 0106) between the first surface of the first component and the second surface of the second component.
As to the limitations in claim 1 of “placing a first surface of a first component onto a second surface of a second component, thereby forming an air film” and “pressing the first surface of the first component against the second surface of the second component, thereby forming the optical contact bonding of the first component to the second component”, as noted above Schuster teaches placing the first surface of the first component (1) covering and onto the second surface of the second component (2), with air therebetween prior to contacting the surfaces and thereby forming an air film, and pressing (at least by further movement to contact) the first surface of the first component against the second surface of the second component, thereby forming the optical contact bonding of the first component to the second component. In the event it is somehow considered Schuster does not necessarily teach one or more of the limitations the following optional rejection is made. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention placing the first surface of the first component onto the second surface of the second component and contacting the first surface of the first component and the second surface of the second component to optically contact bond the surfaces as taught by Schuster comprises placing the first surface of the first component onto the second surface of the second component, thereby forming an air film, and pressing the first surface of the first component against the second surface of the second component, thereby forming the optical contact bonding of the first component to the second component as are the conventional and predictable steps of an actual optical contact bonding process as is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by the admitted prior art (described above in full detail).
As to the limitation in claim 1 of “wherein said placing of the first component is carried out by a robot” and claims 2 and 6-13, as noted above Schuster teaches placing and pressing/contacting by a mechanical rotary device considered a robot (the following rejection of claims 1 and 2 is made in the event it is somehow considered a mechanical rotary device is not necessarily a robot). Schuster does not describe the device in detail and is not limited to any particular mechanical device. Known mechanical device for automatically placing and pressing optical components (4) on a substrate (6) with a corrected inclined position and minimizing torques and shearing forces is taught by Kostner (Figures 5 and 6 and Paragraphs 0002, 0009, 0044, 0045, 0061-0064, 0067, and 0069) comprising a bonding head (2), considered a robot, including a torque sensor (14) wherein the bonding head places and presses a first surface of a first component (4) onto a second surface of a second component (6) by (regarding claim 6) prior to the placing and pressing, bringing a subregion of the first surface of the first component into contact with the second surface of the second component (regarding claim 7) wherein the subregion brought in contact with the second surface of the second component comprises a lateral edge of the first surface and (regarding claim 10) the first surface of the first component and the second surface of the second component are oriented at a predefined angle (β) (defined by the bonding head) with respect to one another during the contacting of the subregion, (regarding claim 8) detecting the contact between the subregion of the first surface and the second surface (regarding claim 9) wherein the detecting of the contact between the subregion of the first surface and the second surface comprises exerting a torque on the robot by the second component detected by the torque sensor, displacing the bonding head by a corrective value, placing and pressing the first surface of the first component against the second surface of the second component (regarding claim 2 wherein the pressing of the first component is carried out by robot and regarding 11 by the first component is rotated about the subregion until the first surface of the first component abuts areally against the second surface of the second component see Figures 5 to 6), and (regarding claim 12) detecting an areal abutment of the first surface of the first component against the second surface of the second component by the torque sensor (closed-loop control unit) wherein (regarding claim 13) the detecting of an areal abutment comprises in the corrective value minimizing a torque exerted on the robot by the second component so that the detected areal abutment only stops the method when the measured torques and shearing forces exceed a predetermined limit value. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the first component is placed and pressed on the second component as taught by Schuster as optionally modified by the admitted prior art using the robot taught by Kostner (and including prior to the placing, bringing a subregion of the first surface of the first component into contact with the second surface of the second component wherein the subregion brought in contact with the second surface of the second component comprises a lateral edge of the first surface and the first surface of the first component and the second surface of the second component are oriented at a predefined angle (β) (defined by the bonding head) with respect to one another during the contacting of the subregion, detecting the contact between the subregion of the first surface and the second surface wherein the detecting of the contact between the subregion of the first surface and the second surface comprises exerting a torque on the robot by the second component detected by the torque sensor, displacing the bonding head by a corrective value, placing and pressing the first surface of the first component against the second surface of the second component, thereby forming the optical contact bonding of the first component to the second component wherein the placing and pressing of the first component is carried out by robot so that the first component is rotated about the subregion until the first surface of the first component abuts areally against the second surface of the second component, and detecting an areal abutment of the first surface of the first component against the second surface of the second component by the torque sensor (closed-loop control unit) wherein the detecting of the areal abutment comprises in the corrective value minimizing the torque exerted on the robot by the second component so that the detected areal abutment only stops the method when the measured torques and shearing forces exceed a predetermined limit value) not only as a simple substitution of one known mechanical device for placing and pressing to yield predictable results but to correct an inclined position and minimize torques and shearing forces.
As to the limitation in claim 1 of “generating a laminar gas flow between the first surface of the first component and the second surface of the second component with a ventilation device”, as noted above Schuster teaches generating a laminar gas flow (as an ionized gas stream instead of UV burner 20 see paragraph 0106) between the first surface of the first component and the second surface of the second component. Schwedenberg is described above in full detail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the UV burner (20) taught by Schuster is replaced with a ventilation device of a fan for generating a laminar gas flow between the first surface of the first component and the second surface of the second component as directed by Schuster wherein a fan is extremely well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to conventionally and predictably generate an ionized gas stream as evidenced by Schwedenberg.
Regarding claims 3-5, Schuster as modified by Kostner and Schwedenberg and optionally further the admitted prior art teaches as in Figures 5 and 6 of Kostner regarding claim 3 orienting the second surface of the second component at an angle (α such as 0o) with respect to a horizontal plane during the placing of the first component and regarding claim 5, the laminar gas flow is oriented at an angle (α such as 0o) with respect to a horizontal plane. Further, the following rejection is made for claim 4 and in the event it is somehow considered Schuster as modified by Kostner and Schwedenberg and optionally further the admitted prior art does not necessarily teach one or more of the limitations of claims 3 and 5 wherein it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art orienting for placing and laminar gas flow in Schuster as modified by Kostner and Schwedenberg and optionally further the admitted prior art comprises orienting the second surface of the second component at an angle (α) with respect to a horizontal plane during the placing of the first component by the second surface of the second component is oriented vertically with respect to the horizontal plane during the placing of the first component (such as by rotating the bonding head 2 suction holding the first component and the base 5 tightly holding the second component taught by Kostner 90o) and the laminar gas flow is oriented at an angle (α) with respect to a horizontal plane wherein shifting the position/changing the orientation to that set forth above would not have modified the method for optical contact bonding (see MPEP 2144.04 and “C. Rearrangement of Parts”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN L GOFF II whose telephone number is (571)272-1216. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST Monday - Friday.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/JOHN L GOFF II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746