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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 04/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 11/16/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the foreign priority application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
MPEP 2115 recites: A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) a claim to a machine for making concrete beams included a limitation to the concrete reinforced members made by the machine as well as the structural elements of the machine itself. The court held that the inclusion of the article formed within the body of the claim did not, without more, make the claim patentable.
Based on the court analysis of In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963) In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) the glass in the presently recited apparatus of the claims is the material being worked upon. This is supported by page 2; line 15 of the originally filed specification which states “a glass substrate manufacturing apparatus” thus the glass is what the apparatus is manufacturing as well as the description of a plurality of glass substrates and the apparatus rotating the plurality of glass substrates yielding a laminated structure where the apparatus rotated the laminated structure of the plurality of glass plates in an etchant to etch the edges of the plurality of glass substrates (page 2; lines 15-29)
Therefore, the apparatus of claim 1 is interpreted to recite the positively recited elements;
A fixture capable of being could to a glass substrate;
A plate comprising;
A first base substrate including a protrusion and
A second base substrate including a depression complementary to the protrusion
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language.
Claim 1 requires;
the plate comprises:
a first base substrate including a protrusion, and a second base substrate including a depression complementary to the protrusion.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and requires;
the plate includes a first plate and a second plate, the first plate includes the first base substrate, and the second plate includes the second base substrate.
Claim 1 requires the plate has two bases with complimentary fitting protrusion and depression each in a base then claim 2 indicates the plate includes a first and second plate only the first plate having the first base substrate with said protrusion as indicated in claim 1 and the second plate including the second base substrate with the depression in claim 1. The plate as required in present claim 2 appears to negate the limitation of the overall plate as described in claim 1.
The only way Examiner can interpret claim 2 to further limit claim 1 for the purpose of this examination is that there are multiple plates as recited in claim 1 each comprising the first and second base as recited in claim 1.
Claims 2-9 are rejected as indefinite as being dependent from claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yudovsky et al. (US 6521292).
Regarding claim 1, Yudovsky discloses an apparatus for manufacturing a glass substrate, comprising:
a fixture, chamber 100 best depicted in Fig 4 and 6, capable of being coupled to a substrate wafer (Col 2; lines 49-51, Col 8; lines 6-21) It would be obvious to a skilled artisan Yudovsky can couple said fixture to one substrate it is capable of coupling a plurality of substrates as implied in (Col 2; line 39-41),
Yudovsky discloses a plate comprising;
a first base substrate (4) including a protrusion (19) capable of being adjacent a plurality of wafers
and a second base substrate (15) including a depression (19) complementary to the protrusion (depicted in Fig 6).
Regarding claim 2, as indicated above Yudovsky discloses a plate comprising;
a first base substrate (4) including a protrusion (19) capable of being adjacent a plurality of wafers
and a second base substrate (15) including a depression (19) complementary to the protrusion (depicted in Fig 6).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Yudovsky as motivated to process multiple wafers in the chamber of Fig 4 at once thus providing a more efficient apparatus.
Regarding claim 5, Yudovsky discloses a space (5, 6) is disposed between the depression and the protrusion when the first base substrate and the second base substrate are combined given the broadest reasonable interpretation (Fig 6).
Regarding claim 6, a width of the depression is greater than a width of the protrusion (Col 6; lines 35-36, Col 7; lines 1-7 and at least Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 7, a height of the depression is greater than a height of the protrusion (Col 6; lines 61-62, Fig 6 element 19 relative to 6).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yudovsky et al. (US 6521292) and further in view of Muto (US 20230088354).
Regarding claims 3-4, Yudovsky fails to disclose an adhesive on the plate substrates.
In an analogous art of processing wafers, such as with CVD like Yudovsky, Muto discloses CVS processing [0026] Muto suggests using a s temporary adhesive on the substrate to bond it to a support for processing (abstract, [0001], [0021]) It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yudovsky with the addition of an adhesive as motivated to maintain the wafer in place during processing as desired by Yudovsky.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 are allowed.
None of the prior art currently available discloses an apparatus capable of all the limitations of claims 8-9, thus including all the limitations of claim 1.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210147286
US 20200258722
US 20200243738 and stepped configuration in jig
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JODI COHEN FRANKLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3966. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am-4 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 Hindelang 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.
JODI COHEN FRANKLIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights