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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS submitted by the applicants on 10/8/2024 and 11/01/2024 have been reviewed.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that the claims include teaching of a “critical temperature”, it is noted that in [0050] of the instant specification that teaches of the critical temperature or higher, “refers to a step of heating a shape memory polymer to a glass transition temperature or higher so as to become a soft rubbery state.” Further, “the glass transition temperature or higher” in the claims are seen as in relation to the shape memory polymer.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the an object” in line 13. There is ambiguous antecedent basis issue regarding this limitation since it is unclear if it is directed to the same object as in line 1, a new object, or something else.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an object” in line 17. There is ambiguous antecedent basis issue regarding this limitation since it is unclear if it is directed to the same object as in line 1, a new object, or something else.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “among the edges of the object” in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the plurality of second nanotips" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation of “the embedment” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed of the object embedded in the second tips as taught in claims 8, 10, and 11.
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 indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 14-15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ANTHAMATTEN (US 2022/0266582 A1) in view of KIM (US 2015/0325286 A1).
Re 1, ANTHAMATTAN teaches of a method of transferring an object using a stamp with shape memory polymer (see [0004]), the method comprising:
a heating step in which a plurality of protrusions (see [0146-0148] provided on an attachment surface is heated to a critical temperature or higher (see [0006]);
a contacting step in which comes into contact with the object (see [0007]);
a pressing step in which the attachment surface is at least partially decreased in roughness to attach the object thereto (see [0007]);
a cooling step in which the stamp in a pressed state are cooled below the critical temperature (see [0008]);
an aligning step in which the an object attached to the stamp is arranged on a receiving substrate (see [0009]); and
a transferring step in which the nanotips arranged on the receiving substrate are heated to the critical temperature or higher to transfer a micro-sized an object to the receiving substrate (see [0010-0012]).
ANTHAMATTAN does not teach of the nanotips structures. Though ANTHAMMATAN does teach in [0204] of “This is achieved by (1) pre-patterning the elastomer with small geometrical features that can continuously modulate their contact area and adhesive interactions with individual thin film features, (2) using flat elastomers with enhanced surface roughness and modulating the true contact area between the elastomer and the film by compressing and flattening rough elastomer interface to achieve high adhesion state, or a combination thereof.”
However, as seen in analogous reference of KIM which teaches of a microscale stamp for transfer printing and teaches of a stamp body comprising a shape memory polymer with the glass transition temperature, and the protruding structures from the stamp body, the surface of the stamp body of 1 square micron to 1 square millimeter. The stamp having resistive heating (see claim 11). See teaching of heating and cooling, [0034, 0036, 0051]. Wherein there is teaching of surface roughness, [0032], from the protruding structures. KIM further teaching of the micro-/nano-scale printing apparatus, see [0293].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the geometrical features of the stamper in the ANTHAMATTAN reference to further having protruding structures on the nanoscale printing as taught by KIM as known features used for nanoscale printing which implies nanotips, see KSR rationale, MPEP2143, as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Re 2 (upon 1), wherein, in the pressing step, the stamp is decreased in surface roughness by the object.
See teaching by ANTHAMATTAN of the compressing and flattening of the elastomer interface, see [0204].
Re 14 (upon 2), wherein the heating step is performed by heating the nanotips to the glass transition temperature or higher. See teaching in ANTHAMATTAN of the heating, see [0297].
Re 15 (upon 14), wherein the heating step is performed by at least one of laser assisted heating, resistive heating, conduction heating, and convection heating. See teaching by KIM of resistive heaters, [0051-0052].
Re 17 (upon 2), wherein the cooling step is performed by cooling the nanotips below the glass transition temperature. See teaching by ANTHAMATTAN [0008, 0168].
Re 18 (upon 17), wherein the cooling step is performed by at least one of conduction cooling, convection cooling, and radiational cooling. See teaching of passive cooling in KIM, [0034], which would encompass the claimed radiational cooling and possible conduction cooling.
Re 19 (upon 2), wherein the heating step, the cooling step, and the transferring step are performed for a portion of the stamp. The teaching combination of ANTHAMATTAN in view of KIM encompasses the stamp which would include a portion.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ANTHAMATTAN in view of KIM as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of KIM’46 (US 2018/0100046 A1).
Re 20 (upon 19), wherein KIM does not specifically teach of at least some among a plurality of objects arranged on an area of the stamp are selectively transferred. It is noted that KIM teachings provides the relation of the stamp to an object 106, see Figs. 1A-1H.
Regarding a plurality of objects, see teaching in KIM’46, see Fig. 1A-1B and Fig. 8, with the plurality of objects that can be operated upon.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of the modified ANTHAMATTAN with plurality of objects as taught by KIM’46 as of processing plural objects under KSR rationale, see MPEP 2143, of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-13 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.
Claim 16 is further objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art references fail to teach the claimed method with the additional feature in claim 3 (and thus with claims 4-13 which are dependent upon claim 3), and further in claim 16, of:
Re 3 (upon 2), wherein in the contacting step, an outer surface of at least one of the nanotips and an edge of the object come into contact with each other at an angle, and in the pressing step, the object and the plurality of nanotips interlock with each other as at least two among the edges of the object deform the nanotips.
The prior art references does not specifically teach of these features of claim 3, of the manner of the nanotips in relation to the edge of the object that engages and how the nanotips interlock with each other as at least two among the edges of the object deform the nanotips, and the closest prior art of ANTHAMATTAN and KIM do not teach of this feature.
Re 4-13, these claims being dependent upon claim 3.
Re 16 (upon 15), wherein the nanotips are provided on a support layer, and the support layer is made of a material that is less thermally deformed than the nanotips.
The closest teaching is by KIM that teaches of the tips 110 which are of harder material than the support body 102,104, see [0028].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 form, remaining KIM (US 10046353 B2) reference teaching another stamp similar to the other KIM references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL S LUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 to 5.
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, Xiao S Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EMMANUEL S LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights