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 .
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.
Claims 1-2 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sasaki et al. (US 10242977).
Regarding claim 1, Sasaki et al. (US 10242977) teaches a foreign matter removal device (Col. 1 lines 17-30, Col. 2 lines 9-15), comprising:
a chamber (Fig. 1 #106) comprising a fluid (Fig. 1 #108); and
a magnet assembly (Fig. 12A “magnet”) under the chamber (Fig. 12A “magnet” under #106), wherein the chamber comprises:
a loading section configured to load a first object, a second object, and a third object into the fluid (Col. 6 lines 30-40);
a first trap region (Fig. 13B left region of #904) configured to trap the first object (Col. 9 lines 10-19, Col. 10 lines 30-35, 39-45);
a second trap region (Fig. 13B middle region of #904) configured to trap the second object (Fig. 11 see #102 trapped in well) and to be adjacent to the first trap region (Fig. 13B middle region of #904 adjacent left region of #904); and
a third trap region (Fig. 13B right region of #904) configured to trap the third object and to be adjacent to the second trap region (Fig. 13B right region of #904 adjacent middle region of #904),
wherein the magnet assembly (Fig. 12A “magnet”) is configured to repeatedly reciprocate at least one or more magnet through the first trap region, the second trap region, and the third trap region (Col. 10 lines 3-12), and
wherein the first object is a first foreign matter (Col. 10 lines 30-35, 39-45 ), the second object is a semiconductor light-emitting element (Col. 6 lines 41-46), and the third object is a second foreign matter (Col. 10 lines 30-35, 39-45).
Regarding claim 2, Sasaki et al. (US 10242977) teaches the foreign matter removal device of claim 1, wherein an intensity of magnetization of the second object is greater than an intensity of magnetization of the first object (Col. 5 lines 17-20, Col. 9 lines 10-19, weakly attached microcomponents are first objects removed from #110 collected at left region of #904), and an intensity of magnetization of the third object is greater than the intensity of magnetization of the second object (Col. 5 lines 17-20, Col. 9 lines 10-19, strongly attached microcomponents are last objects removed from #110 collected at left region of #904).
Regarding claim 19, Sasaki et al. (US 10242977) teaches the foreign matter removal device of claim 1, comprising:
at least one or more liquid supply section (Fig. 2A #122) on a first side of the chamber (Fig. 2A #122 on first side of #106); and
at least one or more liquid discharge section (Fig. 2A #124) on a second side of the chamber (Fig. 2A #124 on second side of #106).
Regarding claim 20, Sasaki et al. (US 10242977) teaches the foreign matter removal device of claim 1, comprising:
at least one or more ultrasound generator (Col. 10 lines 12-18) configured to generate ultrasonic waves for supplying the fluid (Col. 10 lines 12-18).
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.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. (US 10242977) in view of Shim et al. (US 2019/0326144).
Regarding claim 4, Sasaki et al. (US 10242977) teaches the foreign matter removal device of claim 1, wherein the magnet assembly comprises a plurality of magnet assemblies along a width direction of the first trap region, the second trap region, and the third trap region (Col. 10 lines 3-6, “array of drivers”), and
wherein the plurality of magnet assemblies each comprise:
at least one or more magnet (Col. 9 lines 47-49);
a driver which repeatedly reciprocates the at least one or more magnet through the first trap region, the second trap region, and the third trap region (Col. 9 line 40-Col. 10 line 8).
Sasaki et al. (US 10242977) lacks teaching a rail on which the at least one or more magnet is mounted and which repeatedly reciprocates the at least one or more magnet; and at least one or more motor configured to drive the rail.
Shim et al. (US 2019/0326144) teaches a device (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-4) comprising a rail (Fig. 6 #164) on which the at least one or more magnet (Fig. 6 #163) is mounted and which repeatedly reciprocates the at least one or more magnet (Paragraph 0087 lines 8-9, Paragraph 0094 lines 1-9); and at least one or more motor configured to drive the rail (Paragraph 0094 lines 1-9).
Shim et al. (US 2019/0326144) explains that the magnet handler and motor are capable of moving the magnets on the x, y, and z axes or rotating the magnets (Paragraph 0094 lines 1-9), and explains that the changes in the positions of the magnets result in the semiconductor light-emitting diodes being moved (Paragraph 0096 lines 1-8).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sasaki et al. (US 10242977) to include a rail on which the at least one or more magnet is mounted and which repeatedly reciprocates the at least one or more magnet; and at least one or more motor configured to drive the rail as taught by Shim et al. (US 2019/0326144) in order to control the positioning of the magnets and therefore the movement of the microcomponents.
Regarding claim 5, Sasaki et al. (US 10242977) lacks teaching the foreign matter removal device of claim 4, whereon the rail is configured to reciprocate along an up-and-down direction relative to the first trap region, the second trap region, and the third trap region.
Shim et al. (US 2019/0326144) teaches a device (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-4) whereon the rail (Fig. 6 #164) is configured to reciprocate along an up-and-down direction relative to the trap regions (Fig. 6 #164 reciprocates along up-and-down direction relative to #161d, Paragraph 0087 lines 8-9, Paragraph 0094 lines 1-9).
Shim et al. (US 2019/0326144) explains that the magnet handler and motor are capable of moving the magnets on the x, y, and z axes or rotating the magnets (Paragraph 0094 lines 1-9), and explains that the changes in the positions of the magnets result in the semiconductor light-emitting diodes being moved (Paragraph 0096 lines 1-8).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sasaki et al. (US 10242977) to include whereon the rail is configured to reciprocate along an up-and-down direction relative to the first trap region, the second trap region, and the third trap region as taught by Shim et al. (US 2019/0326144) in order to control the positioning of the magnets and therefore the movement of the microcomponents.
Regarding claim 6, Sasaki et al. (US 10242977) lacks teaching the foreign matter removal device of claim 4, the rail is configured to reciprocate along a horizontal direction relative to the first trap region, the second trap region, and the third trap region
Shim et al. (US 2019/0326144) teaches a device (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-4) wherein the rail (Fig. 6 #164) is configured to reciprocate along a horizontal direction relative to the trap regions (Fig. 6 #164 reciprocates along horizontal direction relative to #161d, Paragraph 0094 lines 1-9).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sasaki et al. (US 10242977) to include wherein the rail is configured to reciprocate along a horizontal direction relative to the first trap region, the second trap region, and the third trap region as taught by Shim et al. (US 2019/0326144) in order to control the positioning of the magnets and therefore the movement of the microcomponents.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 7-18 are 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:
Claim 3 recites “a size of the third object is greater than the size of the second object”, wherein this limitation, in combination with the limitations of claim 1, was not seen in the searched prior art. The prior art more commonly showed foreign matter which was smaller than the semiconductor light-emitting elements.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the first trap region has a first trap groove having a first diameter, the second trap region has a second trap groove having a second diameter greater than the first diameter, and the third trap region has a third trap groove having a third diameter greater than the second diameter”, wherein this limitation, in combination with the limitations of claim 1, was not seen in the searched prior art.
Claims 8-18 would be allowed as they are dependent upon claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Molly K Devine whose telephone number is (571)270-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/MOLLY K DEVINE/Examiner, Art Unit 3653