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 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 1-7 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 term “rigid” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rigid” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “flexible” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “flexible” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The examiner submits the terms refer to different objects and terms could reasonably overlap since all materials could be considered flexible or rigid to some degree.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeung et al. (US 2018/0204973) in view of Wagenleitner et al. (US Patent 10,755,930).
Regarding claim 1, Jeung et al. disclose bonding a rigid substrate (110) on which a plurality of light emitting diodes are formed and a flexible substrate(11) (figs 38-39); transferring the plurality of light emitting diodes to the flexible substrate (fig. 39); and detaching the rigid substrate and the flexible substrate [0168].
Jeung et al. fails to disclose the detaching of the rigid substrate and the flexible substrate includes separating the rigid substrate and the flexible substrate in a state in which one surface of the rigid substrate is fixed and a portion among outermost portions of the flexible substrate is fixed by a fixing member.
Wagenleitner et al. discloses one surface of the substrate (2a) is fixed and a portion among outermost portions of the flexible substrate (3) is fixed by a fixing member (5, fixing means).
The combination of Jeung and Wagenleitner would disclose the detaching [Jeung 0168] of the rigid substrate (Jeung, 110) and the flexible substrate (Jeung, 11) includes detaching the wafer and the donor substrate in a state in which one surface of the wafer is fixed (2a, Wagenleitner) and a portion among outermost portions of the flexible substrate (3) is fixed to a stage(fig. 1, Wagenleitner).
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (the fixing means would fix the substrate), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the fixing means would secure the wafer/substrate to the holder).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Jeung and Wagenleitner would disclose the detaching [Jeung 0168] of the rigid substrate (2, fig. 1, Wagenleitner) and the flexible substrate(3, fig. 1, Wagenleitner) further includes loading the rigid substrate and the flexible substrate in the bonding state on a stage (Wagenleitner, fig. 1, 5’).
Regarding claim 3 , the combination of Jeung and Wagenleitner would disclose the detaching [Jeung 0168] of the rigid substrate and the flexible substrate (3, fig. 1, Wagenleitner) further includes fixing one edge among a plurality of edges of the flexible substrate to the stage by the fixing member (5, fig. 1 Wagenleitner), wherein a remaining portion of the flexible substrate is configured to be movable on the stage (fig. 1Wagenleitner).
Regarding claim 4 , the combination of Jeung and Wagenleitner would disclose the detaching [Jeung 0168] of the rigid substrate and the flexible substrate further includes fixing at least one (the edge is fixed in fig. 1 Wagenleitner and that combined with fig. 18 Jeung with square substrate 10 the examiner submits the edge is fixed then at least one corner of substrate 10 would also be fixed) of corner among a plurality of corners of the flexible substrate to the stage by the fixing member(5, fig. 1 Wagenleitner), wherein a remaining portion of the flexible substrate is configured to be movable on the stage (fig. 1 Wagenleitner).
Regarding claim 5 , the combination of Jeung and Wagenleitner would disclose the detaching of the rigid substrate and the flexible substrate further includes moving the rigid substrate (fig. 39 Jeung).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY K SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-1884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-6pm.
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at 571-272-2063. 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.
/BRADLEY SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights