DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 10/5/2023 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration.
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 1-14, in the reply filed on 12/18/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 12/18/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: “the surface based” should read “the surface of the substrate based” in line 6. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities: “of the surface.” should read “the surface of the substrate.” in line 3. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities: “of the surface.” should read “the surface of the substrate.” in line 3. Appropriate correction is required.
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 12 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 12 recites the limitation "the remedial action" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DEGUCHI et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2015/0251398), hereinafter DEGUCHI.
Regarding claim 1, DEGUCHI teaches: An apparatus for characterization of surface quality of a surface of a substrate (DEGUCHI teaches an apparatus for inspecting the surface of a substrate [Abstract; 0100; Fig. 1].), the apparatus comprising: a sensor configured to detect at least one property of the surface of the substrate or ambient environment and provide a value indicative of the at least one property (DEGUCHI teaches an inspection unit (750, e.g., CCD camera) which images a surface of the target substrate and provided image data transmitted to a control unit (5) [0100].); and a processor coupled to the sensor (DEGUCHI teaches a control unit (5) is coupled to the inspection unit (750) [0100].), the processor configured to: determine at least one surface quality parameter of the surface based upon the value provided by the sensor (DEGUCHI teaches the control unit (5) determines whether the bonding agent G adheres to the bevel portion of the support substrate. As an example, if a degree of irregularity of a region corresponding to the bevel portion of the support substrate S in the captured image exceeds a predetermined threshold value, the control unit determines that the bonding agent G adheres to the bevel portion of the support substrate S [0160].); and determine at least one processing parameter for a surface bonding application based upon the at least one surface quality parameter (DEGUCHI teaches when the bonding agent G exceeds a predetermined threshold, the control unit (5) determines the recleaning process is carried out until the bonding agent G is removed [0160-0164].).
Regarding claim 2, DEGUCHI teaches: wherein the surface of the substrate comprises at least one of a metal, polymer, ceramic, or glass material (DEGUCHI teaches the substrate may comprise glass [0003; 0040].).
Regarding claim 7, DEGUCHI teaches: wherein the sensor comprises at least one of an ambient temperature and humidity sensor, a surface temperature sensor, a non-contact infrared surface temperature sensor, a surface roughness sensor, a surface debris sensor, a UV primer sensor, a water contact angle sensor, or a surface composition sensor (DEGUCHI teaches an inspection unit (750, e.g., CCD camera) which images a surface of the target substrate and provided image data transmitted to a control unit (5) and determines if there is debris on the surface [0100].).
Regarding claim 8, DEGUCHI teaches: wherein the processor is further configured to provide an indication of a remedial action to perform responsive to detecting an adverse surface quality condition based upon the value provided by the sensor (DEGUCHI teaches when the bonding agent G exceeds a predetermined threshold, the recleaning process is carried out until the bonding agent G is removed [0164]).
Regarding claim 9, DEGUCHI teaches: wherein the remedial action comprises at least one of cleaning the substrate, priming the substrate, surface treating the substrate, plasma or corona treating the substrate, abrading the substrate, heating the substrate, or drying the substrate (DEGUCHI teaches when the bonding agent G exceeds a predetermined threshold, the recleaning process is carried out until the bonding agent G is removed [0164]).
Regarding claim 10, DEGUCHI teaches: wherein the processor is further configured to control a machine performing the remedial action (DEGUCHI teaches controlling the edge cut apparatus (70) to perform the recleaning process [0165].).
Regarding claim 11, DEGUCHI teaches: wherein processor is further configured to generate a prediction of success of the surface bonding application based upon the at least one surface quality parameter of the surface (DEGUCHI teaches the control unit (5) determines that an abnormality exists on the surface of the substrate and cleans the surface, and this determination generates a prediction of success of the surface bonding application as the control unit (5) notifies an abnormality is present [0160-0161], indicating a failure of bonding.).
Regarding claim 12, DEGUCHI teaches: wherein the remedial action is taken based upon the prediction of success of the surface bonding application (DEGUCHI teaches a recleaning action is taken in order to remove the abnormality [0161-0164].).
Regarding claim 13, DEGUCHI teaches: wherein the prediction of success of the surface bonding application is further based upon at least one of a specific tape or adhesive, a substrate composition, or the at least one property of the surface (DEGUCHI teaches the prediction of success is based upon whether the bonding agent is removed from the surface of the substrate [0161-0165].).
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(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DEGUCHI et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2015/0251398), hereinafter DEGUCHI, in view of HEILMANN (U.S. PGPUB 2020/0130289), hereinafter HEILMANN.
Regarding claim 3, DEGUCHI teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but is silent as to: wherein the at least one property of the surface of the substrate comprises presence of a primer on the surface. In the same field of endeavor, bonding, HEILMANN teaches the surface of the substrate has a primer [0079]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify DEGUCHI, by having a primer on the surface, as suggested by HEILMANN, in order to allow the surface to be inspected directly and nondestructively [0020].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DEGUCHI et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2015/0251398), hereinafter DEGUCHI, in view of Yamada et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2013/0200553), hereinafter YAMADA.
Regarding claim 4, DEGUCHI teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but is silent as to: wherein the sensor comprises a wettability sensor that is configured to estimate wetting angle of a fluid with the surface of the substrate. In the same field of endeavor, bonding, YAMADA, teaches a detector (CCD) operable to measure the angle of contact of water droplets on a layer [0102]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify DEGUCHI, by having the sensor configured to measure a contact of water droplets, as suggested by YAMADA, in order to clean and remove the cleaning agent [0099-0103].
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DEGUCHI et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2015/0251398), hereinafter DEGUCHI, in view of Graehlert et al. (U.S. 10,228,329), hereinafter GRAEHLERT, as evidenced by MIN et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0378716), hereinafter MIN.
Regarding claim 5, DEGUCH teaches all of the limitations as stated above, but is silent as to: wherein the sensor comprises an optical absorption band sensor. In the same field of endeavor, bonding, GRAEHLERT teaches a plurality of detectors above a surface of a substrate configured for a spatially resolved spectral analysis of electromagnetic radiation within a wavelength interval [Abstract; Col. 2, lines 24-31]. GRAEHLERT teaches the detectors are connected to an electronic evaluation unit and are arranged such that electromagnetic radiation emitted by a broadband radiation source impacts the detectors [Col. 2, lines 33-39]. GRAEHLERT teaches the electromagnetic radiation can be emitted by the radiation source whose wavelengths start at UV radiation and end at IR radiation [Col. 3, lines 53-55]. GRAEHLERT teaches the detectors are optical sensors analyzing electromagnetic radiation [Abstract], and an optical absorption band sensor is an optical sensor in a desired absorption wavelength band of light, as evidenced by MIN [0058]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to substitute the sensors in DEGUCHI, with the detectors in GRAEHLERT, in order to determine properties and/or parameters of at least one film formed on or at a surface of a sample [Col. 1, lines 6-8].
Regarding claim 6, DEGUCHI teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, in including providing a notification in response to an anomaly [0160], but DEGUCHI is silent as to: wherein the processor is further configured to: identify surface composition of the surface of the substrate based upon the value provided by the optical absorption band sensor. In the same field of endeavor, bonding, GRAEHLERT teaches the surface quality of the sample or of at least one film formed on the sample, the charge carrier concentration and/or the number and/or size of defects/particulates or inhomogeneities in the sample or in at least one film can be detected with the invention. The surface roughness can be determined in this process. The size of individual defects or inhomogeneities (differences in the material composition) and/or their number per surface can also be determined [Col. 3, lines 15-26; Col. 4, lines 10-15]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify DEGUCHI, by having a detector that measures an optical absorption band and material composition, as suggested by GRAEHLERT, in order to have a high-spectral image system that can be used to material parameters of interest [Col. 4, lines 10-18].
Regarding claim 7, DEGUCHI teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above. In the alternative, in the same field of endeavor, bonding, GRAEHLERT teaches: wherein the sensor comprises at least one of an ambient temperature and humidity sensor, a surface temperature sensor, a non-contact infrared surface temperature sensor, a surface roughness sensor, a surface debris sensor, a UV primer sensor, a water contact angle sensor, or a surface composition sensor (GRAEHLERT teaches the surface quality of the sample or of at least one film formed on the sample, the charge carrier concentration and/or the number and/or size of defects/particulates or inhomogeneities in the sample or in at least one film can be detected with the invention. The surface roughness can be determined in this process. The size of individual defects or inhomogeneities (differences in the material composition) and/or their number per surface can also be determined [Col. 3, lines 15-26; Col. 4, lines 10-15]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify DEGUCHI, by having a detector that measures an optical absorption band and material composition, as suggested by GRAEHLERT, in order to have a high-spectral image system that can be used to material parameters of interest [Col. 4, lines 10-18].
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DEGUCHI et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2015/0251398), hereinafter DEGUCHI, in view of Sofie et al. (U.S. 5,472,771), hereinafter SOFIE.
Regarding claim 14, DEGUCHI teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but is silent as to: wherein the surface bonding application comprises an acrylic foam tape bonding application. In the same field of endeavor, bonding, SOFIE teaches an acrylic foam tape is bonded to a substrate (sheet) [Col. 6, lines 22-28]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify DEGUCHI, by having an acrylic foam tape bonding application, as suggested by SOFIE, in order to have a very high bond [Col. 5, lines 46-47]. Furthermore, it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963) (“The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
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, ABBAS RASHID can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748