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 .
Double Patenting
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12438015 in view of Meitl et al (PGPub 2017/0047306 cited in IDS).
US Pat. 12438015 teaches all of the instant limitations except (i) the distal surface is (a) convex with a center farther from the rigid support than another portion of the distal surface away from the center such that the convex distal surface is structured to contact a component (e.g., device) when the distal surface is pressed against the component or (b) concave with a center closer to the rigid support than another portion of the distal surface away from the center such that the concave distal surface is structured to contact a component when the distal surface is pressed against the component.
Meitl teaches an alternative micro-transfer-printing stamp (Abstract) wherein (i) the distal surface is (a) convex with a center farther from the rigid support than another portion of the distal surface away from the center such that the convex distal surface is structured to contact a component when the distal surface is pressed against the component ([0183]-[0184]- a post surface contour 15 can have a corresponding protrusion (convex)) or (b) concave with a center closer to the rigid support than another portion of the distal surface away from the center such that the concave distal surface is structured to contact a component when the distal surface is pressed against the component (Fig. 3- convex non-planar surface contour 15 of post 14) in order to increase contact area between the post and the micro-structure and result in stronger adhesion between the post and the micro-structure [0168].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stamping device of US Pat. 12438015 to include concave or convex posts as taught by Meitl with reasonable expectation of success to increase contact area between the post and the micro-structure and result in stronger adhesion between the post and the micro-structure [0168].
Claim Objections
Claim 5 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claims 5 and 13, “from the center to the edge” should read “from the center to the edge of the distal surface” for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 14 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the rigid substrate”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation as “a rigid substrate” was not previously recited. Examiner notes that it appears this limitation should read “the rigid support”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meitl et al (PGPub 2017/0047306 cited in IDS).
Regarding Claim 1, Meitl teaches a micro-transfer-printing stamp (Abstract; Fig. 1-3; stamp 10), comprising:
a rigid support (Figs. 1-3- body 12);
an array of posts disposed over the rigid support (Figs. 1-3- posts 14),
each of the posts in the array of posts extending in a direction away from the rigid support to a distal surface of the post (Figs. 1-3 posts 14 extending to distal end 16),
wherein (i) the distal surface is (a) convex with a center farther from the rigid support than another portion of the distal surface away from the center such that the convex distal surface is structured to contact a component when the distal surface is pressed against the component ([0183]-[0184]- a post surface contour 15 can have a corresponding protrusion (convex)) or (b) concave with a center closer to the rigid support than another portion of the distal surface away from the center such that the concave distal surface is structured to contact a component when the distal surface is pressed against the component (Fig. 3- convex non-planar surface contour 15 of post 14), and
(ii) each of the posts comprises an elastic material [0162].
Regarding Claim 2, Meitl further teaches each of the posts in the array of posts comprises an elastomeric material [0162].
Regarding Claim 3, Meitl further teaches each of the posts in the array of posts comprises PDMS [0162].
Regarding Claim 4, Meitl further teaches the distal surface of each of the posts is continuously curved ([0163]; [0178]; corresponding stamp structure to Fig. 18A and 18D).
Regarding Claim 7, Meitl further teaches the distal surface is stepped (Fig. 3, 6, 11; corresponding stamp structures to Figs. 18A-H).
Regarding Claim 8, Meitl further teaches a portion of the distal surface is flat (Fig. 3, 6, 11; corresponding stamp structures to Figs. 18A-H).
Regarding Claim 9, Meitl further teaches the portion that is flat includes the center. (Fig. 3, 11; corresponding stamp structures to Figs. 18B and 18D-H).
Regarding Claim 10, Meitl further teaches the portion that is flat forms a perimeter around the center (Fig. 3, 6, 11; corresponding stamp structures to Figs. 18A-H).
Regarding Claim 11, Meitl further teaches the portion that is flat is a simple closed curve (Fig. 3, 6, 11; corresponding stamp structures to Figs. 18A-H).
Regarding Claim 14, Meitl further teaches a mesa disposed on the rigid support between the rigid support and the posts, wherein the posts extend from the mesa away from the rigid substrate (Fig. 15 showing a mesa between body 12 and posts).
Regarding Claim 15 and 17, Meitl further teaches a component having a component surface (Figs. 1-3- printable device 20), wherein, for one of the posts, the post is under tension or compression [0173] and all of the distal surface of the post is in contact with the component surface (See Figs. showing posts in contact with printable device 20).
Further, a component having a component surface, wherein, for one of the posts, the post is under compression or tension and all of the distal surface of the post is in contact with the component surface is a recitation of the article worked upon. The "inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." MPEP 2115; 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) and thus, the recitation of a component having a component surface, wherein, for one of the posts, the post is under compression or tension and all of the distal surface of the post is in contact with the component surface is not given significant patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 16, a component source wafer (Fig. 16- destination substrate), wherein the component is connected to the component source wafer (Fig. 16- step 150).
Further, a component source wafer, wherein the component is connected to the component source wafer is a recitation of the article worked upon. The "inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." MPEP 2115; 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) and thus, the recitation of a component source wafer, wherein the component is connected to the component source wafer is not given significant patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 18, Meitl further teaches a component having a component surface (Figs. 1-3- printable device 20), wherein the posts are under compression or tension [0173], and less than all of the distal surface of one of the posts is in contact with the component surface ([0186]- the stamp is misaligned and a post is physically displaced).
Further, a component having a component surface, wherein the posts are under compression or tension, and less than all of the distal surface of one of the posts is in contact with the component surface is a recitation of the article worked upon. The "inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." MPEP 2115; 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) and thus, the recitation of a component having a component surface, wherein the posts are under compression or tension, and less than all of the distal surface of one of the posts is in contact with the component surface is not given significant patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 19, Meitl further teaches a target substrate having a target substrate surface (Fig. 16- destination substrate), wherein the component is in contact with the target substrate surface on a surface of the component opposite the component surface (Fig. 16- step 150).
Further, a target substrate having a target substrate surface, wherein the component is in contact with the target substrate surface on a surface of the component opposite the component surface is a recitation of the article worked upon. The "inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." MPEP 2115; 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) and thus, the recitation of a target substrate having a target substrate surface, wherein the component is in contact with the target substrate surface on a surface of the component opposite the component surface is not given significant patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 20, Meitl further teaches the distal surface is concave or convex in one dimension (corresponding stamp structure to Fig. 18A).
Regarding Claim 21, Meitl further teaches the distal surface is concave or convex in two dimensions (corresponding stamp structure to Fig. 18D).
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.
Claims 4-13 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meitl et al (PGPub 2017/0047306 cited in IDS).
Regarding Claims 4, 7-11, and 20-21, in the alternative if the teaching above is not sufficient, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the non-planar surface of the distal end of each post to include the corresponding shape of the micro-structures to increase contact area between the end of the post and the micro-structure resulting in stronger adhesion between the post and the micro-structure [0018]; [0168] as taught by Mietl with reasonable expectation of success thus meeting the instant limitations.
Regarding Claims 5-6, Mietl does not specify a radius of curvature of the distal surface decreases from the center to the edge or a radius of curvature of the distal surface is constant.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the non-planar surface of the distal end of each post to include the corresponding shape of the micro-structures to increase contact area between the end of the post and the micro-structure resulting in stronger adhesion between the post and the micro-structure [0018]; [0168] as taught by Mietl with reasonable expectation of success thus meeting the instant limitations.
Regarding Claims 12-13, Mietl further teaches a portion of the distal surface that is not flat is curved ([0163]; [0178]; corresponding stamp structure to Fig. 18A and 18D) but does not specify a radius of curvature of the distal surface decreases from the center to the edge or a radius of curvature of the distal surface is constant.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the non-planar surface of the distal end of each post to include the corresponding shape of the micro-structures to increase contact area between the end of the post and the micro-structure resulting in stronger adhesion between the post and the micro-structure [0018]; [0168] as taught by Mietl with reasonable expectation of success thus meeting the instant limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrianna Konves whose telephone number is (571)272-3958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00 MST (Arizona).
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 6/22/26
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights