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 .
Claim 1 is amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-2, filed 02/10/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of SANO (US 20210234108) in view of SANO’24 (US 20240019970) further in view of NAKAYAMA (US 20170185187) and JP 2023075566 hereinafter JP’566 .
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 1 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 1 recites the limitation "the second inorganic film " in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2 and 3 are also rejected by virtue of dependency
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 41
indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SANO (US 20210234108) in view of SANO’24 (US 20240019970) further in view of NAKAYAMA (US 20170185187) and JP 2023075566 hereinafter JP’566 .
Regarding Claim 1 SANO discloses method for manufacturing a stretchable device, the method comprising: preparing a glass plate provided with an inorganic film (Figures 7-8, [0058] glass substrate-GL; [0041], [0042] insulating layer-51 covered with layer 52 made of Silicon). SANO discloses a stretchable resin layer (Figure 7-8, layer-4) but did not explicit disclose the resin base member and the array layer forming on the resin base layer.
In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, SANO’24 discloses forming a resin base member (Figure 5, [0039] , resin base meber-21); forming an array layer on the resin base member (Figure 5, [0039], array layer-30,); SANO’024 discloses a stretchable resin layer (Figure 5-, [0040], stretchable layer-20) and bonding a second stretchable resin to the array layer, wherein the bonding the second stretchable resin includes arranging part of the second stretchable resin in a through hole that passes through the resin base member and the array layer (Figure 6 , [0048], through hole-29 surrounded by hinges-23, stretchable layer-50 ).
Further re: the limitation SANO/SANO ’24 discloses that bonding a first stretchable resin to the resin base member from a direction opposite to a direction to which the second inorganic film is disposed relative to the resin base member (SANO , [0042], second inorganic film - insulating layer-53 covered with layer 54; SANO’24 discloses a first stretchable resin-20 to the resin base member-21)
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teaching of SANO with that of SANO’24s bonding method of the stretchable resin plate with that to the array layer for the purpose of strengthening the attachment of the stretchable resin member through the base member to the array member.
SANO/SANO’24 didn’t particularly disclose that and bonding the part of the stretchable resin to the inorganic film. In the same field of endeavor pertaining to the art, NAKAYAMA discloses bonding the part of the stretchable resin to the inorganic film (Figure 14b, [0008], flexible substrate -43 is bonded to film-42), the inorganic film has a formation surface on which the resin base member is formed (Figure 14b, recesses are showing on the film-42), and the formation surface has a recess recessed toward the glass plate in the formation surface before the resin base member (Figure 14b).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teaching of SANO’s film with that of the recessed film taught by NAKAYAMA for the purpose of bonding the resin base member with the formation surface minimizing less deformity in the product.
Further the above combination didn’t particularly disclose that removing the resin base member from the inorganic film by irradiating laser light from a glass plate side to a surface of the resin base member that is in contact with the inorganic film; In the related filed of endeavor pertaining to the art, JP’566 discloses laser light is irradiated to ablate the surface of the substrate-30/ inorganic film to remove the substrate-21/resin base member (page 5, translated, [0043]).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine SANO’s teaching for the purpose of JP’566 teaching for the purpose of ensuring a cleaner detachment process from the surface.
Combining SANO/SANO’24/JP’566 disclose in the removing the resin base member, the part of the second stretchable resin along with the resin base member is removed from the formation surface (resin base member-21 attached to the second stretchable member-50 is attached to the base member, SANO’024) this limitation is met.
Regarding Claim 2 NAKAYAMA discloses , wherein the recess is formed in the entire formation surface (Figure 14B, recessed surface showing on the film -42).
Regarding Claim 3 SANO/ NAKAYAMA discloses , wherein the formation surface has: a covered portion covered by the resin base member (Figure 14B formation surface of film-42 have the recessed surface; SANO teaches that the resin member -21 which combined with NAKAYAMA’s recess on the forming surface of the film can be modified with resin member of SANO ); and an exposed portion not covered by the resin base member, the part of the stretchable resin being bonded to the exposed portion, and the recess is formed only in the exposed portion (Figure annotated; stretchable portion-43 on the exposed portion and the recess formed on the exposed portion).
PNG
media_image1.png
137
351
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DEBJANI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8019. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 pm.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/DEBJANI ROY/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights