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 with traverse of Group II, claims 11-27, in the reply filed on 12/22/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Zou (US20190319165 – previously of record) does not disclose “that the first interaction molecules are intended to interact by reversible chemical interaction with the plurality of second interaction molecules (pg 2 para 5, emphasis theirs). This is not found persuasive because the term “chemical interaction” must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification. See MPEP 2111. Applicant’s specification states “[b]y chemical interaction, it should be understood any type of weak or strong interaction allowing bonding the plurality of first interaction molecules and the plurality of second interaction molecules” (para 0010 of Applicant’s published specification, emphasis added). Given this interpretation, the “chemical interaction” which causes the bonding in Zou is “reversible” as the bond is broken to remove the component. Additionally, as demonstrated below, no shared special technical feature exists in view of van den Brand (US20220216087A1).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/22/2025.
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 11-27 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 11 recites “a physical and/or chemical treatment is applied to molecules selected from the group comprising the plurality of first interaction molecules and the plurality of second interaction molecules” (lines 11-13). The limitation is an improper Markush group and is indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(h).
Claims 12-27 are rejected as depending from an indefinite claim and failing to provide sufficient definiteness to overcome the rejection.
For the purposes of examination, the limitation of claim 11 at issue is interpreted as - a physical and/or chemical treatment is applied to molecules selected from the group consisting of the plurality of first interaction molecules and the plurality of second interaction molecules-.
Claim 16 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.
The phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by van den Brand (US20220216087A1).
In reference to claim 11:
van den Brand discloses a method for handling at least one electronic device by a primary substrate (abstract, para 0020) the handling method comprising:
a phase of providing a provisional system comprising a primary substrate over which the at least one electronic device is arranged (Fig. 1C), and a handling member (Fig. 2A numeral 30), said at least one electronic device having a functional surface (Fig. 2A showing a bottom surface of the devices 11-13), and said handling member comprising a body having a contact surface (Fig. 2A), the handling member comprising a plurality of first interaction molecules bonded to the contact surface (Fig. 2A showing the adhesive 20a), said first interaction molecules being in a reversible chemical interaction situation with a plurality of second interaction molecules which are bonded to the electronic device at the level of the functional surface (Fig. 2A, paras 0023-0027; See para 0010 of Applicant’s published specification stating “[b]y chemical interaction, it should be understood any type of weak or strong interaction allowing bonding the plurality of first interaction molecules and the plurality of second interaction molecules”);
a step of separating the handling member and the at least one electronic device in which a physical or chemical treatment is applied to molecules selected from the group comprising the plurality of first interaction molecules and the plurality of second interaction molecules so as to break said chemical interaction between the plurality of first interaction molecules and the plurality of second molecules interaction (paras 0023, 0026, 0027);
a step (E10) of withdrawing the handling member (Fig. 1C).
In reference to claim 12:
In addition to the discussion of claim 11, above, van den Brand further discloses wherein the step of providing a provisional system comprises:
a step of providing the handling member having the contact surface (Fig. 2A);
a step of providing the primary substrate over which the at least one electronic device is arranged, which has a functional surface (Fig. 2A-2B);
a step of temporarily securing the handling member with said at least one electronic device, via the plurality of first interaction molecules and the plurality of second interaction molecules, said first and second interaction molecules (5, 7) interacting with each other by reversible chemical interaction (Figs. 1A-2C).
In reference to claim 13:
In addition to the discussion of claim 11, above, van den Brand further discloses wherein the chemical and/or physical treatment for breaking the chemical interaction between the plurality of first interaction molecules and the plurality of second interaction molecules comprises the emission of a light radiation at a first wavelength (paras 0040-0041).
In reference to claim 14:
In addition to the discussion of claim 13, above, van den Brand further discloses wherein the light radiation at the first wavelength is emitted throughout the handling member (Fig. 2B).
In reference to claim 15:
In addition to the discussion of claim 13, above, van den Brand further discloses wherein said at least one electronic device is an optoelectronic device capable of emitting a light radiation at the first wavelength when supplied with electrical energy, the separation step being implemented by supplying the electronic device with electrical energy (para 0062).
In reference to claim 16:
In addition to the discussion of claim 11, above, van den Brand further discloses comprising a transfer phase implemented after the phase of providing a provisional system (Figs. 1A-2C), the transfer phase comprising:
a step of detaching said at least one electronic device off the primary substrate (Figs. 1A-2C); and
a positioning step in which the contact surface of the handling member is positioned opposite a receiving surface of a secondary substrate (Figs. 1A-2C).
In reference to claim 17:
In addition to the discussion of claim 15, above, van den Brand further discloses wherein the primary substrate comprises a plurality of electronic devices distributed over an emitting surface of the primary substrate, said emitting surface comprising electronic connections configured to allow powering each electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices individually in a power supply step (E91) (paras 0062-0063).
In reference to claim 18:
In addition to the discussion of claim 17, above, van den Brand further discloses wherein the electrical energy supply step (E91) is selectively implemented on at least one electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices (paras 0062-0063).
In reference to claim 19:
In addition to the discussion of claim 11, above, van den Brand further discloses comprising a step of functionalizing the contact surface of the handling member implemented before the phase of providing a provisional system, wherein the contact surface is functionalized so as to enable the first interaction molecules to be bonded to the contact surface (Figs. 1A-2C).
In reference to claim 20:
In addition to the discussion of claim 15, above, van den Brand further discloses comprising a step of functionalizing the functional surface of the electronic device implemented before the phase of providing a provisional system, in which the functional surface is functionalized so as to enable the second interaction molecules to be bonded to the functional surface (Figs. 1A-2C; See para 0010 of Applicant’s published specification stating “[b]y chemical interaction, it should be understood any type of weak or strong interaction allowing bonding the plurality of first interaction molecules and the plurality of second interaction molecules”).
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) 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van den Brand as applied to claims 11 and 12, above, and further in view of Stokes (US11820926B1).
In reference to claim 21:
In addition to the discussion of claim 11, above, van den Brand fails to disclose an activation step, wherein at least one amongst the contact surface and the functional surface is subjected to a physical or chemical activation treatment so as to activate reactive chemical groups on the plurality of first interaction molecules and/or on the plurality of second interaction molecules. However, this would have been obvious in view of Stokes. Stokes teaches a method of bonding two substrates (col 2 ln 41-47). Stokes further teaches using a reversible Diels-Alder reaction wherein the adhesive is activated by a physical or chemical activation treatment (col 4 ln 6-17) enables a bond which is durable during the intended lifetime but is readily defeated using a selected stimulus, providing for greater reuse and recovery and simpler rework (col 1 ln 39-47). 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 adhesive of van den Brand with the Diels-Alder adhesive of Stokes in order to obtain a method which enables a bond which is durable during the intended lifetime but is readily defeated using a selected stimulus, providing for greater reuse and recovery and simpler rework.
In reference to claims 22, 23, 25, 26, and 27:
In addition to the discussion of claim 12, above, van den Brand fails to disclose wherein the temporary securing step is implemented by a reversible chemical reaction between the plurality of first interaction molecules and the plurality of second interaction molecules (claim 22), wherein the temporary securing step is implemented by a Diels-Alder reaction between the plurality of first molecules interaction and the plurality of second interaction molecules (claim 23), wherein the first interaction molecules and/or the second interaction molecules comprise at least one carbon chain (claim 25), wherein the at least one carbon chain has a distal end at the level of which a distal active site is arranged configured to enable the reversible chemical interaction between the first interaction molecules and the second interaction molecules (claim 26), or wherein the at least one carbon chain has a proximal end at the level of which a proximal active site is arranged configured to enable the at least one chain carbon to be bonded to the functional surface or to the contact surface (claim 27). However, this would have been obvious in view of Stokes. Stokes teaches a method of bonding two substrates (col 2 ln 41-47). Stokes further teaches using a reversible Diels-Alder reaction using interaction molecules having at least one carbon chain with a distal end at the level a level of a distal active site and a proximal end to enable the at least one chain carbon to be bonded to the functional surface or the contact surface (col 2 ln 1-31, Fig. 3) enables a bond which is durable during the intended lifetime but is readily defeated using a selected stimulus, providing for greater reuse and recovery and simpler rework (col 1 ln 39-47). 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 adhesive of van den Brand with the Diels-Alder adhesive of Stokes in order to obtain a method which enables a bond which is durable during the intended lifetime but is readily defeated using a selected stimulus, providing for greater reuse and recovery and simpler rework.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 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.
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 van den Brand (US20220216087A1). van den Brand discloses a method for handling at least one electronic device by a primary substrate (abstract, para 0020) the handling method comprising: a phase of providing a provisional system comprising a primary substrate over which the at least one electronic device is arranged (Fig. 1C), and a handling member (Fig. 2A numeral 30), said at least one electronic device having a functional surface (Fig. 2A showing a bottom surface of the devices 11-13), and said handling member comprising a body having a contact surface (Fig. 2A), the handling member comprising a plurality of first interaction molecules bonded to the contact surface (Fig. 2A showing the adhesive 20a), said first interaction molecules being in a reversible chemical interaction situation with a plurality of second interaction molecules which are bonded to the electronic device at the level of the functional surface (Fig. 2A, paras 0023-0027; See para 0010 of Applicant’s published specification stating “[b]y chemical interaction, it should be understood any type of weak or strong interaction allowing bonding the plurality of first interaction molecules and the plurality of second interaction molecules”); a step of separating the handling member and the at least one electronic device in which a physical chemical treatment is applied to molecules selected from the group comprising the plurality of first interaction molecules and the plurality of second interaction molecules so as to break said chemical interaction between the plurality of first interaction molecules and the plurality of second molecules interaction (paras 0023, 0026, 0027); a step (E10) of withdrawing the handling member (Fig. 1C). van den Brand, and the remaining prior art available, fails to disclose wherein the temporary securing step is performed by a click chemistry reaction between the plurality of first interaction molecules and the plurality of second interaction molecules. 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.
Fehkuhrer (US20190109034A1)
Yoshioka (US20150299534A1)
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