Detailed Action1
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 27, 2026 has been entered.
America Invents Act 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 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Rejections under 35 USC 1032
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious3 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPub No. 2020/0381672 (“Tanaka”) in view of KR-100868471-B1 (“Okano”).
Claim 1 recites a system, comprising: a flexible substrate comprising a first section having a first flexibility and a second section having a second flexibility different from the first flexibility. Tanaka teaches a system comprising a substrate 100 of first sections (i.e. regions 20/30d) and second sections (i.e. regions 30i) (figs. 1A & 1B, ¶ [0064]-[0067]). Since the first sections have added materials (i.e. OLED devices 20 and film 40) compared to the second regions (figs. 1A & 1B, ¶ [0068]), one of skill in the art will reasonably infer that the first and second sections have different flexibilities since adding or changing layers of a product changes the flexibility.
Tanaka further teaches a plate (300) having a first surface (i.e. top of plate 300 when viewing fig. 9B) and a second surface opposite the first surface (i.e. bottom of plate 300 when viewing fig. 9B) (figs. 6-9, ¶ [0080]), wherein the flexible substrate is disposed on the first surface of the plate (¶ [0080] & [0099]-[0100]), wherein the plate has through-holes (300H), between the first and second surfaces, with a variable density that varies from a first pattern arranged in a first density opposite the first section to a second pattern arranged in a second density, different from the first density, opposite the second section (figs. 9A & 9B, ¶ [0099]-[0100], [0102] & [0106]); a vacuum source, which is configured to draw a vacuum in the TH between the first surface and the second surface for fixing the first section to the first pattern and the second section to the second pattern (fig. 9, ¶ [0100]-[0108]). The examiner notes that “vacuum source” is interpreted under 112f as detailed in the Office action mailed on January 27, 2026.
Claim 1 also recites an optical assembly disposed on an opposite side of the flexible substrate from the plate. Tanaka teaches a line beam source that is on a side of the substrate opposite the plate and emits light at the substrate when it is fixed to plate 300 via suction (fig. 4, ¶ [0085]-[0086]). Since lasers are optical devices, the laser device reads on optical assembly.
While Tanaka teaches that the optical assembly can be movable while the plate is stationary (see ¶ [0090], specifically “and vice versa”), Tanaka fails to explicitly teach a positioning assembly configured to position the optical assembly over the flexible substrate, wherein the positioning assembly is configured to move along at least one axis, and wherein the positioning assembly is configured to move the optical assembly. However, this would have been obvious in view of Okano. The examiner notes that “positioning assembly” is interpreted under 112f as detailed in the Office action mailed on January 27, 2026.
Okano is directed to repairing electronic components such as LCD’s, PDP’s and FPD’s (page 2, wherein all references to the Okano specification refer to the machine translation submitted with the Office action mailed on January 27, 2026). Okano teaches that it is known for the electronic component to be fixed and an optical assembly 104 to move over the electronic component by being fixed to a gantry 103, wherein the gantry moves in the Y direction, and the optical assembly moves along the gantry in the X direction (fig. 1-3, pages 2 & 5).
In this case, each of Tanaka and Okano teach moving an optical device over an electronic component. As detailed above, Tanaka teaches that the optical assembly can be movable while the plate is stationary, but is silent as the structure of the assembly that moves the optical assembly with respect to the substrate. Okano teaches a known structure, i.e. a gantry that moves in a first direction, and wherein the optical device/assembly is mounted on the gantry so that the optical assembly can move along the gantry in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction. Moving the optical assembly of Tanaka perpendicular to the moving direction of the gantry can increase the scanning area thereby allowing the optical device to irradiate larger substrates. Thus, it would be obvious to modify Tanaka so that the optical assembly moves with respect to the substrate by positioning in the optical assembly on a gantry that moves in a first direction, and wherein the optical assembly can move along the gantry in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction.
Tanaka et al. fail to explicitly teach a control unit configured to send instructions to the optical assembly, the positioning assembly, and the vacuum source. The examiner is taking Official Notice that it is well known in the art to control manufacturing devices via a controller. Using controllers provides many benefits over steps/processes performed manually, such as increased speed, accuracy, and consistency. Thus, it would be obvious to control the components of the system of Tanaka et al., including the optical assembly, positioning assembly, and vacuum source, via a controller.
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka et al. fail to explicitly teach at least one of the TH has a diameter, which is measured on the first surface, and is smaller than 1 mm. However, MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) states that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In this case, the only difference from the claim and Tanaka et al. is the diameter of the smallest through-hole. Merely scaling the device of Tanaka et al. down so that the smallest through hole is less than 1 mm would not make the device of Tanaka et al. perform differently since it would still be able to hold substrates thereon that have been scaled down comparably to the device.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2019/0143489 (“Munkel”).
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka et al. fail to explicitly teach at least one of the TH has a first cavity extended from the first surface into the plate and having a first shape, and a second cavity that is: (i) extended from the second surface into the plate, (ii) connected to the first cavity and (iii) having a second shape, and wherein at least one of the first shape or the second shape comprises a conical shape. However, this would have been obvious in view of Munkel.
Munkel is directed to a holding device for rigid or flexible sheets and boards such as circuit boards (¶ [0001]-[0002] & [0004]). The holding device includes a suction plate 2 having a plurality of suction openings 4 (figs. 1-2, ¶ [0042]). Munkel teaches the through-holes having a first cavity 4 with a first diameter 100 and extending from the first surface, and a second cavity/nozzle extending from the second surface, meeting the first cavity, and having a diameter 101 less than the diameter of the first cavity (figs. 2-3, ¶ [0049]). This through-hole design results in a negative pressure suction stream not collapsing with a partially open surface of the suction plate 2 , and applies differential pressure to the first cavity which is advantageous because the holding force for a substrate is essentially proportional to the differential pressure of the suction opening to the ambient pressure and the cross-sectional area of the suction opening (¶ [0049]). Munkel also teaches that the first cavity between suction opening 4 and suction nozzle 5 can be conical towards the suction nozzle (¶ [0051] of Munkel).
In this case, Tanaka and Munkel are both directed to holding an electronic component on a suction plate. One of skill in the art appreciates that through-holes of suction plates can have various designs and sizes. Munkel teaches a known design, as detailed above, that provides the above advantages. Thus, it would be obvious to modify Tanaka so that the through holes in plate 300 have a first/larger cavity extending from the first surface and which is at least partially conical, and, have a second/smaller cavity extending from the second surface toward the first cavity.
Claim 3 recites when all the TH have the first cavity, at least twenty percent of the first surface is perforated with the first cavity. Tanaka teaches that the through holes in the first and second regions 300A & 300B can also have different sizes or shapes. Thus, it would be obvious to modify Tanaka so that in addition to a different density, the through-holes of the first and second regions have different shapes. Since the through holes of Tanaka et al. have differently shaped cavities, the limitation of claim 3 does not have to be met since the optional limitation "when all the TH have the first cavity" is not met.
In the alternative, it would be routine optimization to choose a size and spacing of the through holes that achieve this claim limitation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). One of skill in the art appreciates that how well the suction plate holds substrates of varying sizes is related to diameter/width and spacing of the through holes. Determining a workable range of the diameters/widths and spacing between the through holes on the first surface can easily be determined via routine experimentation since these modifications and their effects can predictably be done relatively quickly with computer software. Thus, there would be a reasonable expectation of success of determining workable ranges of the diameters/widths of the through holes and spacing of the through holes of Tanaka et al. so that at least twenty percent of the first surface is perforated with the first cavity.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2019/0148208 ("Godet").
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka et al. fails to explicitly teach the plate comprises stainless steel. However, this would have been obvious in view of Godet. Godet is also directed to a vacuum plate 201 configured to fix a workpiece 100 to a top surface thereof (fig. 2, paras. [0024]-[0029] & [0034]). Godet teaches that it is known to form the vacuum plate out of a variety of materials including stainless steel (para. [0025]).
In this case, each of Tanaka and Godet are directed to vacuum plates configured to fix a workpiece to a top surface thereof. Godet teaches one of skill in the art that stainless steel is a known metal for forming vacuum plates out of. One of skill in the art appreciates that stainless steel has excellent corrosion resistance and high strength. Since it would be predictable for the plate of Tanaka et al. to function as intended when formed out of stainless steel (since it is a rigid metal), it would be obvious to form the plate of Tanaka et al. out of stainless steel in order to provide a plate with high strength and corrosion resistance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 27, 2026 (“the remarks”) have been fully considered. The examiner agrees that the amendments to the claims overcome the previous prior art rejections. Thus, the previous prior art rejections are withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle Cook whose telephone number is 571-272-2281. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-3545. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner's supervisor Thomas Hong (571-272-0993). The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct quotations from claims are presented in italics. All information within non-italicized parentheses and presented with claim language are from or refer to the cited prior art reference unless explicitly stated otherwise.
2 In 103 rejections, when the primary reference is followed by “et al.”, “et al.” refers to the secondary references. For example, if Jones was modified by Smith and Johnson, subsequent recitations of “Jones et al.” mean “Jones in view of Smith and Johnson”.
3 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”
Prosecution Insights