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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-XXX is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okamoto et al. (KR 20200086656).
As to claim 1, Okamoto discloses an apparatus/product for transferring and LED chip comprising: a resin layer (X2) formed on a substrate (Y2), wherein said resin is expandable upon energy/UV radiation to where it expands at a predetermined temperature; wherein the LED chip is disposed on the resin layer and a flip-chip/clip-up structure is embedded in said resin layer (Abstract; ¶47, 65;144, 150, 273, 341, 427, 451; Fig. 5 & 6 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
675
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Here, the apparatus/product of Okamato above discloses all of the recited structural elements claimed.
As to claim 3, the product of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Claim 3 is drawn to method/intended use limitations and does not positively recite any structural elements in the product different than that of claim 1.
As to claim 4, the product of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Okamato discloses that the resin may comprise of a base resin, a solvent, and a photoactive agent (¶150, 273, 427, 451).
As to claim 5, the product of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Okamato discloses that the resin may contain additives/fillers which reinforce adhesive force such curing accelerators (¶369).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto et al. (KR 20200086656) in view of Sato et al. (US 20190292415).
As to claim 2, the product of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Okamato discloses that the resin may comprise of a base resin, a solvent, and a photoactive agent (¶ 150, 273, 427, 451), but fails to specifically teach that the solvent in the resin may be in the form of an organic solvent. Sato discloses an adhesive sheet for peeling (Abstract). Sato discloses that it is known and conventional in the art to use an organic solvent (alcohol) for dissolving the base resin in a UV expandable adhesive (¶ 9, 45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the organic solvent of Sato in the product taught by Okamoto because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a known successful and conventional solvent for use in a UV expandable/releaseable adhesive. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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:
As to claim 6, the closest prior art of Okamoto et al. (KR 20200086656) fails to teach or disclose that ultrapure (DI) water may be added to the resin.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET whose telephone number is (571)270-3968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM EST.
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, PHILLIP TUCKER can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/GEORGE R KOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights