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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/7/2024 and 10/25/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0001], line 18, “flowcell” should be written as “flow cell.”
In paragraph [0138], line 3, “a x-axis and y-axis” should be written as “an x-axis and y-axis.”
In paragraph [0156], line 7, “(e.g.DNA, RNA or analogs thereof)” should be written as “(e.g. DNA, RNA, or analogs thereof).”
In paragraph [0175], line 20, “unspoooling” should be written as “unspooling.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 14 and 15 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 14, “the accumulator” is recited which contradicts with “one or more accumulator” was recited in claim 13, as it doesn’t specify whether only one accumulator may comprise of one or more tensioner or each accumulator comprises of one or more tensioner given that there may be more than one accumulator. Therefore, “the accumulator” should be written as “each one or more accumulator.”
Regarding claim 15, the accumulator” is recited which contradicts with “one or more accumulator” was recited in claim 13, as it doesn’t specify whether only one accumulator may comprise of one or more tensioner or each accumulator comprises of one or more support given that there may be more than one accumulator. Therefore, “the accumulator” should be written as “each one or more accumulator.”
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.
Claims 7 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.
Regarding claim 7, the claim language teaches “both surfaces of the substrate,” although only a single surface of the substrate is taught in claim 1. This is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for indefiniteness under lack of antecedent basis due to both surfaces of the substrate being recited without any previous recitation of a second surface of substrate. However, the second surface of the substrate along with the first surface of the substrate is taught in claim 8. Therefore, the examiner suggests that claim 8 comes before claim 7, with claim 7 being dependent on claim 8.
Regarding claim 12, the claim language teaches accumulating one or more length of the substrate before a first polishing, after a first polishing and before a second polishing, and any combination thereof. This is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for indefiniteness under alternative limitations as the incorporation of “and any” doesn’t make it clear whether the accumulation of one or more length of the substrate must be performed at all three given timeframes (e.g. before the first polishing, between the first and second polishing, and after the polishing) or can be performed in at least one timeframe without requiring for the accumulation to occur in the timeframe(s) within the polishing process. Therefore, the examiner suggests that claim 12 should be written as “accumulating one or more length of the substrate before a first polishing, after a first polishing and before a second polishing, or after the polishing, and any combination thereof.”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 2, the claim language teaches “the polishing comprises removing some of the hydrogel from the depressions.” This is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) for not including all the limitations of the independent claim due to claim 1 teaching the polishing comprising “removing the hydrogel from the interstices but not from the depressions.” Thus, what claim 2 teaches replaces or omits the limitation from claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, claim language teaches “the polishing comprises removing none of the hydrogel from the depressions.” This is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) for not including all the limitations of the independent claim due to claim 1 teaching the polishing comprising “removing the hydrogel from the interstices but not from the depressions.” Thus, what claim 3 teaches replaces or omits the limitation from claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George et al. (US 20200224020 A1), hereinafter George, in view of Mikhaylichenko et al. (US 20220281062 A1), and further in view of Hong et al. (US 20220100091 A1).
Regarding claim 1, George teaches (reproduced in annotated Figs. below) the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1, wherein the invention comprises of a method, comprising: polishing a surface of the substrate (“The polishing head(s)/pad(s) or other polishing tool(s) is/are capable of polishing the polymer coating layer 20 from the interstitial regions 16 [wherein interstitial region 16 is part of substrate 12],” [0181], George), wherein before the polishing, the substrate comprises depressions (depressions 14 as shown in annotated Figs. 1A-1D below) separated by interstices (interstitial regions 16 as shown in annotated Figs. 1A and 1B below) and a coating (polymer coating layer 20 as shown in annotated Figs. 1C and 1D below) comprising a hydrogel (“the flow cell 10 may be exposed to the predetermined stimulus of the polymer coating layer 20 in order to transition the polymer coating layer 20 from a current state to a more hydrophilic state (e.g., from the hydrophobic state to the hydrophilic state),” [0202], George; polymeric materials of hydrophilic state can be interpreted as hydrogels, refer to [0098] of instant application) disposed on the depressions and the interstices (“The attachment of the polymer coating layer 20 to the silanized depressions and silanized interstitial regions (i.e., 18) may be through covalent bonding,” [0172], George; as shown in annotated Fig. 1C below), and the polishing comprises applying a slurry to the surface of the substrate (“The polishing process may be performed with a gentle chemical slurry (including, e.g., an abrasive, a buffer, a chelating agent, a surfactant, and/or a dispersant),” [0180], George) and removing the hydrogel from the interstices but not the depressions (“The silanized and coated patterned support is then exposed to polishing, if needed, to remove portion(s) of the polymer coating layer 20 from the silanized interstitial regions. The silanized, coated, and polished patterned substrate is shown in FIG. 1D,” [0179], George; as shown in annotated Fig. 1D below) by contacting the surface of the substrate with one or more polisher (“The polishing process may be performed with a gentle chemical slurry (including, e.g., an abrasive, a buffer, a chelating agent, a surfactant, and/or a dispersant) which can remove the thin polymer coating layer 20, and in some instances, at least part of the silane or silane derivative 18, from the interstitial regions 16 without deleteriously affecting the underlying support 12 at those regions,” [0180], George).
PNG
media_image1.png
936
767
media_image1.png
Greyscale
George does not teach introducing relative movement between the one or more polisher and the surface.
However, Mikhaylichenko does teach a polishing apparatus, wherein introducing relative movement between the one or more polisher and the surface (“The substrate 10 rotation and roller 120 rotational and translational motion create a relative motion between the roller 120 and the substrate 10 front face,” [0034], Mikhaylichenko).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify George, to incorporate the teachings of Mikhaylichenko to allow for the polisher to reposition itself with respect to the intended contact area of the substrate surface during the polishing process ([00034], Mikhaylichenko).
George, as modified, does not teach a method of making a flow cell unspooling a substrate from a source coil.
However, Hong does teach unspooling a substrate from a source coil (“An example roll to roll process involves the surface of the substrate being continuously patterned with micro-scale or nano-scale patterns as the surface moves past a patterning device while being unspooled from one roll and spooled onto another roll,” [0581], Hong).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify George, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Hong to provide a method of quickly and easily transferring a substrate from the source coil to the polisher and also allow for the substrate to be continuously patterned as the substrate moves while being unspooled in the polishing apparatus ([0581], Hong).
Regarding claim 2, George, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1, wherein the polishing comprises removing some of the hydrogel from the depressions (“Polishing removes portion(s) of the polymer coating layer 20 (and in some instances at least part of the silane or silane derivative 18) from the interstitial regions 16 and leaves portion(s) of the polymer coating layer 20 in the silanized depressions, as shown in FIG. 1D,” [0183], George).
Regarding claim 3, George, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1, wherein the polishing comprises removing substantially none of the hydrogel from the depressions (“Polishing removes portion(s) of the polymer coating layer 20 (and in some instances at least part of the silane or silane derivative 18) from the interstitial regions 16 and leaves portion(s) of the polymer coating layer 20 in the silanized depressions, as shown in FIG. 1D,” [0183], George).
Regarding claim 4, George, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1.
George, as modified, does not teach the introducing relative movement between the one or more polisher relative to the surface of the substrate comprises moving the substrate.
However, Mikhaylichenko does teach the introducing relative movement between the one or more polisher relative to the surface of the substrate comprises moving the substrate (“Referring to FIG. 2A, the platen 110 supporting the substrate 10 rotates about axis 114,” [0029], Mikhaylichenko).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify George, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Mikhaylichenko to allow for the polisher to reposition itself with respect to the intended contact area of the substrate surface during the polishing process ([0034], Mikhaylichenko).
Regarding claim 5, George, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1.
George, as modified, does not teach wherein the introducing relative movement between the polisher relative to the surface of the substrate comprises moving one or more of the one or more polisher.
However, Mikhaylichenko does teach the introducing relative movement between the polisher relative to the surface of the substrate comprises moving one or more of the one or more polisher (“The rotational motion of the roller 120 polishing surface in the presence of the polishing liquid 132 causes a portion of the substrate 10 material in the contact area to be removed, e.g., polished, while not removing substrate 10 material outside of the contact area. If necessary, the roller 120 can be moved along an axis parallel to the plane of the substrate 10,” [0034], Mikhaylichenko).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify George, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Mikhaylichenko to allow for the polisher to reposition itself with respect to the intended contact area of the substrate surface during the polishing process ([0034], Mikhaylichenko).
Regarding claim 6, George, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1, wherein the depressions are in one surface of the substrate (“The patterned support 12 includes depressions 14 defined on or in an exposed layer or surface of the support 12,” [0146], George).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George et al. (US 20200224020 A1), hereinafter George, in view of Mikhaylichenko et al. (US 20220281062 A1), in view of Hong et al. (US 20220100091 A1), and further in view of Sasaki et al. (JP H10188381 A).
Regarding claim 7, George, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1.
George, as modified, does not teach the depressions are in both surfaces of the substrate. However, Sasaki does teach (reproduced and annotated Fig. below) an optical disk used as a recording medium for information signals, wherein the depressions are in both surfaces of the substrate (“A substrate in which projections and depressions such as a guide groove are formed on both surfaces, a recording section formed by sequentially laminating a reflective layer and a recording layer on each surface of the substrate where depressions and projections are formed,” pg. 10, lines 14-17, Sasaki; as shown in annotated Fig. 2 below).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify George, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Sasaki to provide depressions on both surfaces of the substrate so that each depression is capable of receiving a film, layer, or coating on each surface of the substrate when said film, layer, or coating is laminated onto each surface of the surface (pg. 4, lines 18-21, Sasaki; as shown in annotated Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
432
564
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George et al. (US 20200224020 A1), hereinafter George, in view of Mikhaylichenko et al. (US 20220281062 A1), in view of Hong et al. (US 20220100091 A1) and Sasaki et al. (JP H10188381 A), and further in view of Murai et al. (US 20070045232 A1).
Regarding claim 8, George, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1, wherein a front of the first surface comprise the depressions, interstices, and coating (“The polymer coating layer 20 may be formed on the surface of the silanized patterned support 12 (i.e., onto the silanized depressions and the silanized interstitial regions) using any suitable technique,” [0168], George; “The patterned support 12 may be a patterned wafer or a patterned die or any other patterned support (e.g., panel, rectangular sheet, etc.,” [0145], George).
George, as modified, does not teach a second surface, a front of the second surface comprise the depressions, interstices, and coating, and a back of the first surface is laminated to a back of the second surface.
However, Sasaki does teach the substrate comprises a second surface, a front of the second surface comprise the depressions, interstices, and coating (“A substrate in which projections and depressions such as a guide groove are formed on both surfaces, a recording section formed by sequentially laminating a reflective layer and a recording layer on each surface of the substrate where depressions and projections are formed,” pg. 10, lines 14-17, Sasaki; as shown in annotated Fig. 2 below).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify George, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Sasaki to provide depressions on both surfaces of the substrate so that the depressions, interstices, and coating allow for the substrate to be operated on both sides or surfaces rather than one to enable information signals to be recorded on both surfaces of the substrate (pg. 4, lines 18-21, Sasaki; as shown in annotated Fig. 2).
George, as modified, does not teach a back of the first surface is laminated to a back of the second surface.
However, does Murai teach (reproduced and annotated Fig. below) a method of polishing a wafer substrate, wherein a back of the first surface is laminated to a back of the second surface (“The wafer 5a with its back surface inside is combined or laminated to a support substrate 5b having a diameter identical to the wafer 5a via wax or pressure-sensitive adhesive to form a substrate laminate 5ab.”; as shown in annotated Fig. 1 below).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify George, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Murai to increase the mechanical strength of a single substrate by laminating its back surface with an additional substrate which functions as a support substrate during the substrate polishing process ([0019], Murai).
PNG
media_image3.png
800
790
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George et al. (US 20200224020 A1), hereinafter George, in view of Mikhaylichenko et al. (US 20220281062 A1), additionally in view of Hong et al. (US 20220100091 A1), further in view of Barnard et al. (US 20140243224 A1).
Regarding claim 9, George, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1.
George, as modified, does not teach the substrate further comprises a protective film.
However, Barnard does teach (reproduced and annotated Fig. below) a solid support having a surface containing a plurality of depressions or wells, interstitial regions, and a gel material, wherein the substrate further comprises a protective film (“Photolithography based approaches will typically involve use of a photoresist that is patterned with a stepper or mask aligner, exposed with radiation which transfers the pattern present on a reticle/photomask into the photoresist, and then the resist is developed to yield a structured film (photoresist) on top of the substrate,” [0109], Barnard; as shown in annotated Fig. 3A below).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify George, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Barnard so that the protective film can be placed over the surface of the blank substrate to be patterned, wherein the in the pattern of the protective film is transferred onto the substrate prior to removing the substrate in preparation for coating the substrate surface as part of the substrate manufacturing process ([0109], Barnard).
PNG
media_image4.png
499
574
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, George, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1.
George, as modified, does not teach the method of claim 1, further comprising disposing a protective film on the substrate.
However, Barnard does teach the method further comprising disposing a protective film on the substrate (“Photolithography based approaches will typically involve use of a photoresist that is patterned with a stepper or mask aligner, exposed with radiation which transfers the pattern present on a reticle/photomask into the photoresist, and then the resist is developed to yield a structured film (photoresist) on top of the substrate,” [0109], Barnard; as shown in annotated Fig. 3A above).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify George, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Barnard so that the protective film can be placed over the surface of the blank substrate to be patterned, wherein the in the pattern of the protective film is transferred onto the substrate prior to removing the substrate in preparation for coating the substrate surface as part of the substrate manufacturing process ([0109], Barnard).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George et al. (US 20200224020 A1), hereinafter George, in view of Mikhaylichenko et al. (US 20220281062 A1), additionally in view of Hong et al. (US 20220100091 A1), further in view of Schneider et al. (US 20220106713 A1).
Regarding claim 11, George, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1.
George, as modified, does not teach introducing relative movement comprises moving a first section of the substrate at a first speed while moving a second section of the substrate at a second speed.
However, Schneider does teach methods and systems for mechanically forming one or more surface protrusions integrally from a garment material, wherein introducing relative movement comprises moving a first section of the substrate at a first speed while moving a second section of the substrate at a second speed (“the substrate 200 may advance through an accumulator apparatus 600 that decelerates a portion 200a of the substrate 200 to a second speed S2 less than a first speed S1,” [0052], Schneider).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify George, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Schneider to properly adjust the straight alignment of each portion of the substrate with respect to the polisher or roller while the substrate is moving relative to the polisher or roller ([0058], Schneider)
Claims 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George et al. (US 20200224020 A1), hereinafter George, in view of Mikhaylichenko et al. (US 20220281062 A1), additionally in view of Hong et al. (US 20220100091 A1), further in view of Kato et al. (TW 201720736 A).
Regarding claim 12, George, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1.
George, as modified, does not teach the method of claim 1 further comprising accumulating one or more length of the substrate before a first polishing, after a first polishing and before a second polishing, after the polishing, and any combination thereof.
However, Mikhaylichenko does teach the method further comprising accumulating one or more length of the substrate before a first polishing (“In one aspect, a polishing apparatus includes a support configured to receive and hold a substrate in a plane,” [0006], Mikhaylichenko).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify George, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Mikhaylichenko to accumulate the length of the substrate the support to dispose the substrate in a section of the polishing apparatus that can allow for immediate contact between the polisher and substrate upon starting the polishing process ([0006], Mikhaylichenko).
George, as modified, does not teach the method further comprising accumulating one or more length of the substrate after a first polishing and before a second polishing, after the polishing, and any combination thereof.
However, Kato does teach the method further comprising accumulating one or more length of the substrate after a first polishing and before a second polishing (“A first accumulating device (first accumulating portion) BF1 capable of accumulating the substrate P of a predetermined length is provided between the processing device PR2 and the processing device PR3,” pg. 6, lines 6-8, Kato), after the polishing, and any combination thereof (“ The second accumulating device (second accumulating portion) BF2 of the substrate P. Therefore, in the processing device PR3, the substrate P sent from the processing device PR2 is carried in through the first storage device BF1, and the processing device PR3 carries the substrate P out to the processing device PR4 through the second storage device BF2,” pg. 6, lines 9-13, Kato).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify George, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Kato to allow for continuous processing of the accumulated length of a substrate between a first and second polishing in addition to determining whether or not the state of the substrate satisfies the expectation of the accumulation after the polishing process (pg. 3, lines 16-25, Kato).
Regarding claim 13, George, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1.
George, as modified, does not teach further comprising accumulating the substrate with one or more accumulator.
However, Kato does teach further comprising accumulating the substrate with one or more accumulator (“A first accumulating device (first accumulating portion) BF1 capable of accumulating the substrate P of a predetermined length,” pg. 6, lines 6-7, Kato).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify George, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Kato to increase the length of the substrate accumulated in the accumulator if the speed at which the substrate exits the accumulator is greater than the speed at which the substrate enters the accumulator (pg. 14, lines 3-6, Kato).
Regarding claim 14, George, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 13.
George, as modified, does not teach the method of claim 13, wherein the accumulator comprises one or more tensioner.
However, Kato does teach the method, wherein the accumulator comprises one or more tensioner (“The first accumulating device BF1 of the pattern forming device 12 has drive rollers NR3 and NR4 and a plurality of tension rollers 20,” pg. 13, lines 32-34, Kato).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify George, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Kato to use the tensioners to apply a predetermined tension onto the substrate to stretch the substrate’s width as to not cause unevenness in the width direction of the substrate (pg. 8, lines 10-15, Kato).
Regarding claim 15, George, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 13.
George, as modified, does not teach the method of claim 13, wherein the accumulator comprises one or more support.
However, Kato does teach the method, wherein the accumulator comprises one or more support (“The driving roller NR3 rotates while holding the front and back surfaces of the substrate P fed from the processing device PR2, and carries the substrate P into the first storage device BF1. The driving roller NR4 rotates while sandwiching the front and back surfaces of the substrate P, and carries the substrate P in the first storage device BF1 to the processing device PR3,” pg. 13, lines 34-38, Kato).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify George, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Kato to allow the support to hold and transport the substrate from an accumulator and to polishing process and vice versa (pg. 13, lines 34-38, Kato).
Regarding claim 16, George, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 13.
George, as modified, does not teach the method of claim 13, wherein the one or more accumulator retains the substrate at one or more tensions.
However, Kato does teach the method wherein the one or more accumulator retains the substrate at one or more tensions (“A plurality of tension rollers 20 are disposed between the drive roller NR3 and the drive roller NR4 to impart a predetermined tension to the substrate P,” pg. 13, lines 38-40, Kato).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify George, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Kato to use the tensioners to apply a predetermined tension onto the substrate to stretch the substrate’s width as to not cause unevenness in the width direction of the substrate (pg. 8, lines 10-15, Kato).
Regarding claim 17, George, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 13.
George, as modified, does not teach the method of claim 13, wherein the one or more accumulator retains one or more fixed lengths of the substrate.
However, Kato does teach wherein the one or more accumulator retains one or more fixed lengths of the substrate (“A first accumulating device (first accumulating portion) BF1 capable of accumulating the substrate P of a predetermined length,” pg. 6, lines 6-7, Kato).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify George, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Kato to allow for the accumulated length of the substrate to remain predetermined or fixed even if the accumulated length in the accumulator increases (pg. 14, lines 8-11, Kato).
Regarding claim 18, George, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 13.
George, as modified, does not teach the method of claim 13, wherein the one or more accumulator retains one or more variable lengths of the substrate.
However, Kato does teach the method wherein the one or more accumulator retains one or more variable lengths of the substrate (“The maximum accumulation length can be adjusted by the number of tension rollers 20 in the first accumulation device BF1 in FIG. 4 and the plurality of tension rollers 22 in the second accumulation device BF2 (the support substrate),” pg. 59, lines 32-34, Kato).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify George, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Kato to adjust the positioning of the tensioners based on the maximum accumulation length of the substrate (pg. 59, lines 39-49, Kato).
Regarding claim 19, George, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 13.
George, as modified, does not teach the method of claim 13, wherein the substrate enters the one or more accumulator at a first speed and exits the one or more accumulator at a second speed wherein the first speed is either faster than, slower than, or equal to the second speed.
However, Kato does teach the method, wherein the substrate enters the one or more accumulator at a first speed and exits the one or more accumulator at a second speed wherein the first speed is either faster than, slower than, or equal to the second speed (“On the other hand, when the transport speed of the substrate P loaded in the first storage device BF1 is slower than the transport speed of the substrate P carried out from the first storage device BF1, the length of the substrate P accumulated in the first storage device BF1 (accumulation length) That is to reduce,” pg. 14, lines 11-15, Kato; “When the transport speed of the substrate P carried in the first storage device BF1 is faster than the transport speed of the substrate P carried out from the first storage device BF1, the length (accumulation length) of the substrate P accumulated in the first storage device BF1 increases,” pg. 14, lines 3-6, Kato).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify George, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Kato to correlate the change in the initial and final speed of the substrate through the accumulator with the accumulation length of the substrate (pg. 14, lines 3-6 & lines 11-15, Kato)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bruxvoort et al. (US 5958794 A) teaches a method of modifying an exposed surface of a semiconductor wafer.
Shendure et al. (US 20220356461 A1) teaches a method for preparing a sequencing library that includes nucleic acids from a plurality of single cells.
Steemers et al. (US 20210102194 A1) teaches a method for preparing a sequencing library that includes a plurality of single cells.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISHAQ M ISHAQ whose telephone number is (571)270-0696. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-5PM.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/I.M.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights