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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of amendments.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 6-8 are dependent off of cancelled claim 5. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaji (US 2019/096774) in view of Kusner et al. (US 2018/0066248)
With respect to claim 1, Chaji discloses a method to transfer microdevices from a template substrate (paragraphs 0005-0007, 0138-0139, and 0196-0200; Figures 17A, 17B, 18A-18E), the method comprising:
providing cartridges (paragraph 0005);
holding the microdevices in the template substrate (paragraph 0005);
using alignment marks in a template substrate to align cartridges with a template substrate (paragraph 0138; Figures 19 and 20);
aligning cartridges to the template substrate while the microdevices face the template substrate (paragraphs 0005, 0138 and 0139; Figures 19 and 20);
placing the cartridges according to allocated positions in the template substrate (paragraph 0138; Figure 20); and
transferring the cartridges to a holding substrate (paragraph 0139) via a holding force in a close proximity (paragraphs 0072 and 0139; Figure 20).
Chaji does not teach aligning cartridges to the template substrate, wherein the template substrate includes grooves for receiving the cartridge. However, Kusner et al. teach doing so to help ensure the fitting between the cartridge and substrate.
With respect to claim 11, Chaji teaches that using a vacuum while aligning a template with a receiver substrate; one of ordinary skill in the art may also use one of: a thermal bonding, an optical bonding, van-der waals forces or a mechanical grip (paragraph 0197).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 14-26 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONYA M SENGUPTA whose telephone number is (571)272-6019. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30am-5:00pm.
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 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.
/SONYA M SENGUPTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745