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
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
Claims 1-10, drawn to apparatus, classified in H10P72/0428.
II. Claims 11-20, drawn to method, classified in C23C14/542.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions II and I are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus can be used to make phones or computer monitors rather than just television screens.
During a telephone conversation with Ryan Swain on September 9, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of the method, claims 11-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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.
Claim(s) 11 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2018/0102509 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Kim discloses a method of manufacturing a display device [abstract], the method comprising: moving a substrate on a seating portion to a position (figure 3A placing the substrate on a stage 200); separating the substrate from a support portion [0058]; moving the support portion to an initial position (see figure 4A); seating the substrate on the support portion (see figure 4B); moving the substrate to the position (figures 4A and 4 B); and moving the support portion so that a dummy layer on the substrate corresponds to a dummy position (claim 2). Further, MPEP 2144.04 discloses Omission of an element and its function where not needed has been held to be obvious, Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375, and In re Kuhle, 188 USPQ. In this case, Kim does not explicitly disclose the repeating steps of seating, separating, moving and then seating again. However, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to move a substrate and then separate it since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. Additionally, in general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes (e.g., Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C).
Regarding claim 18, Kim does not explicitly disclose supporting different portions of the substrate at different respective heights. However analogous art ‘528 discloses having different thickness layers at different positions (pg.3 paragraph 11; pg. 6 paragraph 4). Therefore, it would have been within the skillset of one ordinary skilled in the art to have supporting different portions of the substrate at different respective heights. Further, devices such as television and phones have different shapes depending on the design and would therefore have supports at different portions of the substrate at different respective heights. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 19, Kim doesn’t explicitly disclose keeping the substrate flat. However, given the limited number of options: either flat or curved, it would be within the skillset of one ordinary skill in the art to keep the substrate flat. MPEP 2143 states obvious to try is a prima facie case of obviousness: Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 20, Kim does not explicitly disclose keeping a portion of the substrate flat by applying a pressure to an end of the substrate adjacent to the dummy layer, the dummy layer being at the portion of the substrate. However, Kim figure 6 depicts the substrate and dummy layer adjacent to each other. Further Kim discloses using negative pressure to attach material to the stage [0046]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a portion of the substrate flat by applying a pressure to an end of the substrate adjacent to the dummy layer, the dummy layer being at the portion of the substrate since "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (US 2017/0098567 A1) in view of Isokawa (US 2017/0285609 A).
Regarding claim 12, Kim doesn’t explicitly teach further comprising detecting the position of the substrate and a position of the seating portion. However, Isokawa, discloses using sensors to determine if the wafter is in the right position (see claim 12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a detector to position the substrate in order to ensure the right fit of the substrate and seating position.
Regarding claim 16, Kim does not explicitly disclose further comprising measuring a position of the dummy layer. However, Isokawa, discloses using sensors to the position of the dummy layer (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention comprising measuring a position of the dummy layer in order to ensure process stability, equipment performance, and quality control.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (US 2017/0098567 A1) in view of Isokawa (US 2017/0285609 A), as applied to claim 16, and further in view of WO2019/132528 A1, herein referred to as ‘528.
Regarding claim 17, Kim does not explicitly disclose comparing the position of the dummy layer with the dummy position. However, analogous art ‘528 discloses measuring thickness layers (pg. 3 paragraph 11) at different positions (pg. 6 paragraph 4). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure position and compare it to the height of the dummy layer since (1) the dummy layer is reusuable (pg.3 paragraph 9) and therefore one must ensure proper quality control of the dummy layer. Further, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (US 2017/0098567 A1) in view of WO2019/132528 A1, herein referred to as ‘528.
Regarding claim 13, Kim does not explicitly disclose further comprising measuring a thickness of the dummy layer. However, analogous art ‘528 discloses measuring thickness layers (pg. 3 paragraph 11). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure the thickness of the dummy layer since (1) the dummy layer is reusuable (pg.3 paragraph 9) and "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 14, Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the thickness of the dummy layer is measured during transferring of the substrate. However, ‘528 disclose discloses measuring thickness layers (pg. 3 paragraph 11). Further, In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes (e.g., Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C). Therefore, it would have been within the skillset of one ordinary skill in the art to measure the thickness during the transferring of the substrate.
Regarding claim 15, Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the thickness of the dummy layer is measured at a space of the substrate having a same layer as the dummy layer. . However, ‘528 disclose discloses measuring thickness layers (pg. 3 paragraph 11). Further, In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes (e.g., Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C). Therefore, it would have been within the skillset of one ordinary skill in the art to measure the thickness during the transferring of the substrate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/FARAH TAUFIQ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights