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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 07/30/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups I and II do not present undue burden to examine as both groups share a common technical feature. This is not found persuasive because while the inventions have a common feature as they are relevant inventions, the inventions are independent or distinct and have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification and require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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, 3, 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asahi (JP2019176154A, citations based on machine translation) in view of Kamata (JP2020061529A, citations based on machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Asahi teaches a sensitive adhesive sheet for capturing an element detached from a holding substrate ([0002]-[0021] and [0031]-[0052] and Fig. 1-5), the adhesive sheet comprising: an adhesive layer having a surface having an unevenness (Fig. 1-2 and 5-8 and [0048]-[0050]).
Asahi does not explicitly teach a pressure adhesive sheet comprising a pressure sensitive adhesive layer.
Kamata teaches a pressure adhesive sheet for use in manufacturing an electronic device. Kamata teaches as the pressure-sensitive adhesive constituting the radiation-peelable pressure-sensitive adhesive, generally known pressure-sensitive adhesives can be used, and examples thereof include (meth) acrylic pressure-sensitive adhesives, silicone pressure-sensitive adhesives, rubber pressure-sensitive adhesives, polyurethane pressure-sensitive adhesives, polyvinyl ether-based adhesives and the like.
While Asahi teaches the use of acrylic or silicone radiation-peelable adhesive sheet, Asahi does not explicitly discuss the pressure sensitive adhesive feature, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to look elsewhere. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to select for the radiation-peelable adhesive of Asahi a radiation-peelable adhesive pressure-sensitive adhesive, a known suitable adhesive for adhesive sheets for electronic manufacturing as taught by Kamata and desired by Ashai.
Regarding claim 3, Asahi in view of Kamata teaches the sheet as applied to claim 1, wherein the pressure sensitive adhesive layer includes, on the surface, a plurality of convex portions separated from each other via a concave portion (Asahi, Fig. 5-8 and [0048]-[0050]).
Rejection claim 6, Asahi in view of Kamata teaches the sheet as applied to claim 1, wherein the pressure sensitive adhesive layer includes a convex portion with a boundary defined by a concave portion, and a ratio of an area occupied by the convex portion relative to an area of the pressure sensitive adhesive layer is 1% or greater and 95% or less (Asahi, Fig. 5-6 and [0035]).
Regarding claim 7, Asahi in view of Kamata teaches the sheet as applied to claim 1, wherein the pressure sensitive adhesive layer is configured such that a ratio of an adhesive area between the pressure sensitive adhesive layer and one element relative to an area of the one element is 1% or greater and 95% or less (Asahi, Fig. 5-6, [0025], [0035]).
Regarding claim 8, Asahi in view of Kamata teaches the sheet as applied to claim 1, wherein the pressure sensitive is capable of being separated from the holding substrate by an external stimulus and the element detached from the holding substrate capable of being captured in the pressure sensitive adhesive (Asahi, [0039] and Fig. 3).
Product must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function (see MPEP § 2114).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asahi (JP2019176154A, citations based on machine translation) in view of Kamata (JP2020061529A, citations based on machine translation), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Kamada (PG-PUB 2020/0181457).
Regarding claim 2, Asahi teaches the sheet as applied to claim 1.
Asahi in view of Kamata does not teach the pressure sensitive adhesive layer has a storage modulus of 0.001 MPa or greater and 100 MPa or less.
Kamada teaches an adhesive member comprising a base material having an uneven shape and a surface layer of adhesive material (Figure 1 and [0024]-[0028], [0031], [0054]-[0056]). Kamada teaches a surface layer made of acrylic resin or silicone-based resin [0056]-[0061]. Kamada teaches the surface layer has a storage elastic modulus at 25°C of preferably from 1 MPa to 1 GPa, more preferably from 5 MPa to 1 GPa, still more preferably from 10 MPa to 50 MPa [0061].
Asahi is silent to the storage modulus, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sheet of Asahi with a storage modulus with the range of 1 MPa to 1 GPa, a known suitable storage modulus for uneven adhesive layers, particularly silicone-based or acrylic-based layers as taught by Kamada.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asahi (JP2019176154A, citations based on machine translation) in view of Kamata (JP2020061529A, citations based on machine translation), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Khodaparast (PG-PUB 2021/0071043).
Regarding claim 4, Asahi in view of Kamata teaches the sheet as applied to claim 1, the pressure sensitive adhesive layer includes a plurality of convex portions separated from each other with a boundary defined by a concave portion (Asahi, Figure 1-5).
Asahi in view of Kamata does not teach a pitch between the plurality of convex portions is 1 micron or greater and 100 micron or less.
Khodaparast teaches an adhesive article that include a stretch releasable adhesive and topographical, engineering elements on, within, or partially embedded in a surface of the adhesive (Figure 1 and 2). Khodaparast teaches the topographical features can be prepared in different patterns, on a regular or random basis, such as protrusive elements [0039]-[0041]. Khodaparast teaches the creation of structures eliminates or substantially reduces any deleterious effect on the mechanical performance of the adhesive construction or an article containing the adhesive construction [0042]. Khodaparast teaches the pitch is between about 100 microns and about 300 microns [0062].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sheet of Asahi with a dispersion pattern of protrusive elements as taught by Khodaparast, a known suitable dispersion pattern of protrusive elements on adhesive layers, to yield the predictable result of providing structures that reduce deleterious effect on the mechanical performance of the adhesive construction as taught by Khodaparast.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asahi (JP2019176154A, citations based on machine translation) in view of Kamata (JP2020061529A, citations based on machine translation), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Iguchi (PG-PUB 2020/0035627).
Regarding claim 4 and 5, Asahi in view of Kamata teaches the sheet as applied to claim 1, the pressure sensitive adhesive layer includes a plurality of convex portions separated from each other with a boundary defined by a concave portion, including circular or square convex portions (Asahi, Figure 1-5).
Asahi in view of Kamata does not teach a pitch between the plurality of convex portions is 1 micron or greater and 100 micron or less.
Asahi in view of Kamata does not teach an area of each of the plurality of convex portions is 10 µm2 or greater and 2000 µm2 or less.
Iguchi teaches an adhesive substrate including a support member and an adhesive layer provided on the support base, wherein the substrate is capable of selectively picking up and transferring large amounts of fine chips and particles [0076]-[0079]. Iguchi teaches the size and interval of the recessed and projected pattern of the support base member 1 are not particularly limited, and can be selected appropriately in accordance with the size of the chips or particles to be picked up. Iguchi to pick up fine chips and particles, the projected portions may have a width of 1 μm to 100 μm, [0079]. Iguchi teaches the shape may be circular column, quandrangular column, and the like [0080]. Iguchi teaches adjacent projected portions may have an interval of 1 μm to 100 μm, preferably 1 μm to 50 μm, more preferably 1 μm to 20 μm [0083].
Asahi in view of Kamata is silent to the pitch dimensions, prompting one of look elsewhere in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sheet, in particularly the dispersion of the protrusions, of Asahi with the pitch of projections of Iguchi, a known suitable dispersion pattern of protrusive elements on adhesive layers.
Asahi in view of Kamata is silent to the projection dimensions, prompting one of look elsewhere in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sheet, in particularly the size of the protrusions, of Asahi with the size of the projections of Iguchi, a known suitable size pattern of protrusive elements on adhesive layers, to yield the predictable result of providing an adhesive sheet capable of adhering items such as chips.
Given that the protrusion dimension of Ashai in view of Kamata and Iguchi ranges from 1 μm to 100 μm, the area would range from 1 µm2 or greater and 1000 µm2.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA C PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-1578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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 5712721095. 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.
HANA C. PAGE
Examiner
Art Unit 1745
/HANA C PAGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights