www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address; COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`15/691,846
`
`08/31/2017
`
`SATOSHI ADACHI
`
`PIPMM-S57948
`
`2966
`
`umes
`
`aR
`PEA
`PEARNE & GORDON LLP
`1801 EAST OTH STREET
`SUITE 1200
`CLEVELAND,OH 44114-3108
`
`GHORISHI, SEYED BEHROOZ
`
`1748
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`11/03/2020
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`patdocket@ pearne.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`15/691,846
`ADACHI etal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`S. B GHORISHI
`1748
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEofthis communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133}.
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 8/25/2020.
`LC} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`2a)l¥) This action is FINAL.
`2b) (J This action is non-final.
`3) An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4\(Z Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-6 and 8-9 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) 5 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`[] Claim(s)__ is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-9 is/are rejected.
`1 Claim(s)__is/are objectedto.
`C] Claim(s)
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10)() The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)M The drawing(s) filed on 8/31/2017 is/are: a) accepted or b)C) objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)[¥) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)() None ofthe:
`b)( Some**
`a)) All
`1.4) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1) Certified copies of the priority documents have beenreceived in Application No.
`3.2.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) ([] Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) (J Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) (J Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`4)
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20200911
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691 ,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 2
`
`Detailed Office Action
`
`The Applicant's Amendment dated 8/25/2020 has been entered and fully
`
`considered. Claims 1 and 2 have been amended. Claim 5 is withdrawn from
`
`examination. Claim 7 is cancelled. New claim 9 is added. Claims 1-6, 8, and 9 remain
`
`pending.
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA 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.
`
`Response to Amendments and Arguments
`
`1.
`
`Applicant's arguments that cited prior arts of TSUJIKAWA (JP 201410752),
`
`hereinafter TSUJIKAWA, and FUKUSHIMA (JP 2002158498), hereinafter FUKUSHIMA,
`
`do not disclose the amendedlimitations of claim 1, have been fully considered but they
`
`are not persuasive (see filed amendmentof 8/25/2020, pages 5 and 6).
`
`Applicant states that regarding the amended claim 1, neither TSUJIKAWA nor
`
`FUKUSHIMA, alone or in combination, discloses, teaches or renders obvious an
`
`auxiliary support memberprovided adjacent to the backup stage; wherein the suction
`
`pipe lines include an auxiliary suction pipe line connectedto the auxiliary support
`
`member. The amendedclaim 1 requires not only duplicating the suction pipe, but also
`
`another support member,i.e., an auxiliary support memberprovided adjacent to the
`
`backup stage, and anotherpipe line, i.e., an auxiliary suction pipe line connectedto the
`
`auxiliary support member. Neither TSUJIKAW A nor FUKUSHIMAdiscloses the
`
`auxiliary support member provided adjacent to the backup stage, and the auxiliary
`
`suction pipe line connectedto the auxiliary support member.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691 ,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 3
`
`The Examiner respectfully disagrees. FUKUSHIMA explicitly teaches that the
`
`auxiliary support member hasits own suction pipeline that is connected to the auxiliary
`
`support member {[0013], [FIG. 1B]}. As shownin FIG. 1B, the auxiliary support
`
`members 4a and 4b have their own independent piping and are separately, through on-
`
`off valve 8, are connected to the vacuum source 6. The backup stage 4 hasits own
`
`independent piping and through valve 7 is connected to the vacuum source6.
`
`FUKUSHIMAfurther describes the independent operation of the backup stage 4 (or
`
`member 1) and auxiliary members 4a and 4b (or surface 2a and 2b) through operation
`
`of their independent piping and on-off valves {[0014]}. The rejection of this amended
`
`limitation is detailed below in the 35 USC 103 section.
`
`It should be noted that, the duplication argument that the Examiner made in the
`
`non-final office action of 6/9/2019 wasrelated to the limitation in the previous set of
`
`claims reciting that the suction mechanism comprises of two or morepipelines. The
`
`current amendedlimitation further associates the two pipelines with their respective
`
`members. As such, the duplication argumentis not applicable to the current, amended
`
`claim 1.
`
`Claim Interpretation
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
`
`(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. — An elementin a claim for a combination may be
`expressed as a meansor step for performing a specified function without the recital of
`structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the
`correspondingstructure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents
`thereof.
`
`The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
`
`An elementin a claim for a combination may be expressed as a meansor step for performing
`a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691 ,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 4
`
`such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts
`describedin the specification and equivalents thereof.
`
`The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be
`
`understood byone ofordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the
`
`description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
`
`paragraph, is invoked.
`
`As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the
`
`following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlIA 35
`
`U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
`
`(A)—the claim limitation uses the term “means”or “step” or a term used as a substitute
`
`for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-
`
`structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed
`
`function;
`
`(B)—the term “means”or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional
`
`language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g.,
`
`“meansfor’) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so
`
`that’: and
`
`(C)
`
`the term “means”or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
`
`structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
`
`Use of the word “means”(or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a
`
`rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35
`
`U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691 ,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 5
`
`limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
`
`paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or
`
`acts to entirely perform the recited function.
`
`Absenceof the word “means”(or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable
`
`presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
`
`112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim
`
`limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
`
`paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting
`
`sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
`
`Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means”(or “step”) are
`
`being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph,
`
`except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this
`
`application that do not use the word “means”(or “step”) are not being interpreted under
`
`35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise
`
`indicated in an Office action.
`
`This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word
`
`“means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder
`
`that is coupled with functional language withoutreciting sufficient structure to perform
`
`the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
`
`Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “suction mechanism”in claims 1 and 2, “pressing
`
`mechanism”in claim 1, and “peeling mechanism”in claim 1.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691 ,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 6
`
`Because this/theseclaim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
`
`112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to
`
`cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the
`
`claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
`
`If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35
`
`U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:
`
`(1) amend the
`
`claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA
`
`35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the
`
`claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s)
`
`sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being
`
`interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 1 and 2 havethe limitation “suction mechanism’. The Examiner interprets
`
`this under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because (A) the claim uses the generic place holder term
`
`“mechanism” and (B) the terms “mechanism”is modified by the functional language
`
`“suction” and (C) the term “mechanism” is not modified by sufficient structure for
`
`performing the function of suction. The Examiner interprets “suction mechanism’ as a
`
`vacuum source and valve [0029] and equivalent thereof.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 1 has the limitation “pressing mechanism”. The Examiner interprets this
`
`under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because (A) the claim uses the generic place holder term
`
`“mechanism” and (B) the terms “mechanism”is modified by the functional language
`
`“pressing” and (C) the term “mechanism”is not modified by sufficient structure for
`
`performing the function of pressing. The Examinerinterprets “pressing mechanism” as a
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691 ,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 7
`
`pressing cylinder 71 and cuboid pressing tool 72 {[0023], FIGs. 3 and 4} and equivalent
`
`thereof.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 1 has the limitation “peeling mechanism”. The Examiner interprets this
`
`under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because (A) the claim uses the generic place holder term
`
`“mechanism” and (B) the terms “mechanism”is modified by the functional language
`
`“peeling” and (C) the term “mechanism”is not modified by sufficient structure for
`
`performing the function of peeling. The Examiner interprets “peeling mechanism” as a
`
`pin unit 81 and peeling cylinder 82 {[0024], FiGs. 3 and 4} and equivalent thereof.
`
`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 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
`
`obviousnessrejections 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 effectivefiling 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
`
`USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691 ,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 8
`
`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 namesjoint inventors. In considering patentability of the
`
`claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was
`
`commonly ownedasof the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any
`
`evidenceto 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
`
`ownedas ofthe effectivefiling 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.
`
`5.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over TSUJIKAWA (JP 201410752), hereinafter TSUJIKAWA,in view of FUKUSHIMA
`
`(JP 2002158498), hereinafter FUKUSHIMA.
`
`Regarding claim 1, TSUJIKAWAteaches an apparatus that reads on the
`
`applicant claim of A tape sticking apparatus which sticks a tape slice together with a
`
`separator attached to an uppersurface of the tape slice to an end region of a board
`
`formed ofa film-shaped member {[0001] The present invention relates to an ACF (the
`
`tape) affixing device and an ACF affixing method for forming a cut in an ACF tape and
`
`bonding an ACF tape section formed on a base tape to a substrate (the film-shape
`
`member), [FIG. 1] Tp is the tape and BT is the separator, as seen the end region of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691 ,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 9
`
`board 2 has the tape 4S attached to the end region, [FIG. 5b] the separatoris pulled up
`
`by 27 from tape 4S}, the apparatus comprising:
`
`a backup stage which supports the end region of the board; a pressing
`
`mechanism which presses the tape slice against the end region of the board together
`
`with the separator {[0016] FIG. 1: A backup stage 13 is provided as a support when the
`
`ACF tape piece 4S is attached to the substrate 2 by the pressure bonding head 12,
`
`{[FIG. 5b] pressing mechanism is 30 has a cylinder and cuboid attachedtoit, also see
`
`section 112(f) above};
`
`a peeling mechanism which pulls up the separator from the tape slice to separate
`
`the separator from the tape slice {[FIG. 5b] peeling mechanism is 27 whichis similar to
`
`the claimed peeling mechanism as shownin the instant FIG. 9 (numeral 81) of the
`
`instant disclosure, also see section 112(f) above}.
`
`TSUJIKAWA, however,is silent on the structure of the backup stage comprising
`
`a porous upper portion and the structure being connected to a suction mechanism while
`
`supporting the end region of the board, and the configuration of the suction pipe
`
`attached to the suction mechanism. TSUJIKAWAis also silent on an auxiliary support
`
`member that is located adjacent to the back stage.
`
`In the same filed of endeavor that is related to supporting a flexible board during
`
`a mounting/bonding step, FUKUSHIMAdiscloses an apparatus that reads on the
`
`applicant claim of a porous material portion which is provided at an upperportion of the
`
`backup stage and supports a lower surface of the end region of the board {[0001] the
`
`present invention relates to a holding stage of a flexible printed circuit board that holds a
`
`soft, flexible substrate, [0004] (referring to prior art) although the transport device is
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691 ,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 10
`
`used to place the FPC(flexible board) on the holding stage, there is a risk that the FPC
`
`may be placedin a wrinkled state, and there is a problem in that the FPC is not
`
`uniformly bonded, [0005] Accordingly, an object of the present invention is to provide a
`
`holding stage of a flexible substrate capable of holding flexible printed substrates having
`
`various widths, [0006] according to a feature of the present invention, there is provided
`
`a suction surface table comprisingafirst suction surface member in which a plurality of
`
`first holes for vacuum suctioning the tip (end region) of a flexible printed board are
`
`formed (the porous material portion), [FIG. 1a] 5 is the porous material portion at the
`
`upper portion of backup stage 10 and support the lower surface of board 20FPC};
`
`and a suction mechanism which sucks the end region of the board through the
`
`porous material portion {[FIG. 1b] illustrate the suction mechanism that has the vacuum
`
`source 6 and valve 7 and piping 12, also see section 112(f) above}.
`
`an auxiliary support memberwhich provided adjacent to the backup stage
`
`{[0006] A second suction (the auxiliary part) having a plurality of second holes formed in
`
`the same plane asthe first suction surface member, [FIG. 1] 5a and 5b are the auxiliary
`
`support membersthat are adjacent to the backup stage 5 (note that backup stage is
`
`disclosed by TSUJIKAWAas discussed aboveandis very similar to backup stage of 5
`
`of FUKUSHIMA,thus the auxiliary member (s) can be easily incorporated adjacentto
`
`the backup stage of the apparatus of TSUJIKAWA},
`
`wherein the suction mechanism includes two or more suction pipe lines though
`
`which a vacuum is applied, and at least one of the suction pipe lines is connected to a
`
`side surface of the porous material portion, and wherein the suction pipe lines include
`
`an auxiliary suction pipe line connectedto the auxiliary support member{[0013], [0014],
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691 ,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 11
`
`[FIG. 1B] note the auxiliary support members 4a and 4b have their own independent
`
`piping and are separately, through on-off valve 8, are connected to the vacuum source
`
`6. The backup stage 4 hasits own independent piping and through valve 7 is connected
`
`to the vacuum source 6}.
`
`At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the backup stage of TSUJIKAWA
`
`according to the teachings of FUKUSHIMAsuchthatit can support a flexible board
`
`while a taping process is undergoing. It would have also been obvious to haveincluded
`
`auxiliary members to the backup stage to expand this area for taping of larger boards.
`
`As disclosed by FUKUSHIMA,flexible boards, during bonding process, can potentially
`
`undergo wrinkling that results in non-uniform bonding {[0004]}. In the instant case, one
`
`would have been motivated to have incorporated the porosity and suction structure of
`
`the backup stage of FUKUSHIMAin the tape sticking and backup stage apparatus of
`
`TSUJIKAWAin order to successfully provide for a uniform bonding of the tape across
`
`the end region of the board of TSUJIKAWA.
`
`Also as disclosed by FUKUSHIMA,flexible boards with variable width (wider
`
`cases) can be supported by addition of this second suction platform or the auxiliary
`
`member {[0005]}. Making the extension detachable providesthe flexibility to change the
`
`size as disclosed by FUKUSHIMA{[0022]}.
`
`Regarding the nextlimitation of claim 1: “wherein the peeling mechanism pulls up
`
`the separator from the tape slice to separate the separator from the tape slice during the
`
`suction mechanism sucking the end region of the board”, the Examiner notes that the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691 ,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 12
`
`abovelimitation recites what and how the disclosed apparatus is configured to do the
`
`processoftape sticking.
`
`The Examiner has shown an apparatus according to the combination of
`
`TSUJIKAWA and FUKUSHIMAwith similar structure and components. Apparatus
`
`claims cover what a device is, not what it does or how a device does a process. A claim
`
`containing a “recitation with respect to the mannerin which a claimed apparatus is
`
`intended to be employed doesnotdifferentiate the claimed apparatus fromaprior art
`
`apparatus” {see MPEP 2114 (II)}. It is Examiner’s position that combination of
`
`TSUJIKAWA and FUKUSHIMAapparatus is capable of performing the intended
`
`function.
`
`Nevertheless, FUKUSHIMAteachesthat its suction apparatus is designed to
`
`properly hold the flexible board while a bonding or a thermocompression bonding (i.e.
`
`sticking) processis implemented on the flexible board {[0004], [(0023]}. As such, it is
`
`inherent that when one ofordinary skill in the art combines the holding apparatus of
`
`FUKUSHIMAinto the tape apparatus of TSUJIKAWA,the intent as disclosed by
`
`FUKUSHIMAis to usethis holding apparatus when the sticking processis implemented
`
`due to the advantages that FUKUSHIMAdiscloses regarding the processing offlexible
`
`boards {[0004}}.
`
`Regarding claims 2 and 4, FUKUSHIMAdiscloses an apparatus that reads on
`
`the applicant claim of wherein the auxiliary support member supports a lower surface of
`
`an intermediate portion positioned at a center region side of the board with respect to
`
`the end region of the board, wherein an upper surface of the auxiliary support member
`
`has the same height as a height of an upper surface of the porous material portion
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691 ,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 13
`
`(claim 2) {{0006] A second suction (the auxiliary part) having a plurality of second holes
`
`formed in the same plane (same height) as the first suction surface member, [FIG. 1] 5a
`
`and 5b are the auxiliary support members that have their upper surface at the same
`
`height as the backup stage 5, 5b supports the wider section of the board (see below for
`
`“intermediate”) and has suction holes connected to the section mechanism}
`
`wherein the suction mechanism sucks the intermediate portion of the board
`
`through the auxiliary suction pipe line and a plurality of suction ports provided to be
`
`open to the upper surface of the auxiliary support member(claim 2) {[FIG. 1] 5b
`
`supports the wider section of the board (see below for “intermediate”) and has suction
`
`holes connected to the section mechanism}.
`
`wherein the auxiliary support memberis detachably attached to the backup stage
`
`(claim 4) {{0022] In addition, by making this extension suction surface stand attachable
`
`to and detachable from the suction surface stand, it can be replaced with an extension
`
`suction surface stand according to the width of the FPC}.
`
`Aspreviously set forth in the rejection of claim 1, at the effectivefiling date of the
`
`instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have
`
`extended or have enlarged the backup stage of TSUJIKAWAaccording to the teachings
`
`of FUKUSHIMA suchthat a wider or longer board can be supported. As disclosed by
`
`FUKUSHIMA, flexible boards with variable width (wider cases) can be supported by
`
`addition of this second suction platform or the auxiliary member {[0005]}. Making the
`
`extension detachable provides the flexibility to change the size as disclosed by
`
`FUKUSHIMA {[0022]}.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691 ,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 14
`
`The Examiner notes that FUKSHIMA’s auxiliary member is provided in the width
`
`direction of the board since further mounting is in the width direction.
`
`It would have
`
`been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the instant invention to
`
`have rearranged the auxiliary stage 5a or 56 of FUKUSHIMA{[FIG. 1]} in the length
`
`direction of the board (in the intermediate section adjacent to the end section when
`
`viewed acrossthe length), since it has been held that mere rearrangement of elements
`
`without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art
`
`{see MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C)}.
`
`One would have been motivated to have placed the auxiliary stage 5a along the
`
`length of the board and in the intermediate section for better support of longer and
`
`narrower flexible board since additional support in the length direction prevents buckling
`
`of the flexible material.
`
`Regarding claim 9 limitation of “wherein a bottom surface of the auxiliary support
`
`memberis higher than a bottom surface of the backup stage’, as previously setforth in
`
`the rejection of claims 1 and 4, at the effective filing date of the instant invention, it
`
`would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have extended or have
`
`enlarged the backup stage of TSUJIKAWA according to the teachings of FUKUSHIMA
`
`such that a wider or longer board can be supported. As disclosed by FUKUSHIMA,
`
`flexible boards with variable width (wider cases) can be supported by addition of this
`
`second suction platform or the auxiliary member {[0005]}.
`
`The auxiliary support member of FUKUSHIMA{[FIG. 1], numeral 2} has the
`
`same height as its backup stage {[FIG. 1], numeral 1}. Therefore, the combination
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691 ,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 15
`
`aboveis silent on the bottom surface of the auxiliary member being higher than the
`
`bottom surface of the main backup stage (thus a shorter auxiliary member).
`
`However, at the effectivefiling date of the instant invention, it would have been
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have designed and installed a shorter
`
`auxiliary member attached to the main backup stage, since such a modification would
`
`have involved only a mere change in size/proportions of a component. Note that it has
`
`been held that scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size
`
`is generally considered being within the ordinary skill in the art {MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)}.
`
`One would have been motivated to make the auxiliary member shorter to save
`
`the material of construction, since the main support and suction is provided by the
`
`backup stage and notthe auxiliary member.
`
`The Examiner notes that the instant specification does not provide a rationale for
`
`the criticality of this design as well.
`
`6.
`
`Claims 3, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`TSUJIKAWA and FUKUSHIMAasapplied to claims 2 and 1 above, and further in view
`
`of TAGA (US/2014-008361 7), hereinafter TAGA.
`
`Regarding claims 3, 6, and 8, combination of TSUJIKAWA and FUKUSHIMA
`
`disclosesall the limitations of claims 2 and 1 as detailed above. This combination is,
`
`however, silent on sizing the suction holes so that voids are not generated in the board
`
`and on numerical values of these sizes.
`
`In the same filed of endeavor that is related to tape sticking apparatus, TAGA
`
`discloses an apparatus that reads on the applicant claim of wherein a hole diameter of
`
`eachof the plurality of suction ports is sized such that voids are not generated in the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691 ,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 16
`
`board that is sucked (claim 3) {{0056] as shown in FIGS. 2A and 2B, amesh cap 14a
`
`with a number of small holes formed there through is provided. This mesh cap 14a is
`
`providedto increasethe effective cross section when air is sucked, while preventing the
`
`rubber sheet 10 from being sucked into the second supply/exhaustpipe 14 (indicates
`
`sizing of the pore holes 14a and pipe holes 14 to distribute vacuum uniformly, thus
`
`prevent void creation, and not so large such that the flexible board is suckedin)}.
`
`At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied teachings of TAGAto the apparatusof
`
`TSUJIKAWA and FUKUSHIMAin order to provide for an appropriate sizing of the
`
`suction mesh (pore holes) and pipe holes. The advantage of the sizing as disclosed by
`
`TAGAis the even distribution of vacuum suchthat no void (lack of suction) is created
`
`and at the same time the flexible board is not sucked in {[0056]}.
`
`Regarding claim 6 that assigns a numerical value of substantially 60 tm to the
`
`pore holes and claim 8 that assigns a size of 0.3 mm orless to the suction port, as
`
`disclosed above, TAGAteachesthe effect of varying these sizes on the uniformity of the
`
`suction and prevention of buckling or suction in of the flexible board (caused by larger
`
`holes), as such TAGAidentifies size of pores and ports to be result-effective variables
`
`{[0056]}.
`
`It is well established that determination of optimum values of result-effective
`
`variables (in this case size of ports and pores) is within the skill of one practicing in the
`
`art {see MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B)}.
`
`The person of ordinary skill in the art would look to optimize the sizes of these
`
`suction holes which are result-effective variable through routine experimentation to
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691 ,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 17
`
`determine appropriate sizes that result in a very inform distribution of vacuum while no
`
`void or buckling of the flexible substrate is affected.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in
`
`this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP
`
`§ 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as setforth in 37
`
`CFR 1.136(a).
`
`A shortenedstatutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE
`
`
`
`MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the eventafirst replyis filed within
`
`TWO MONTHS ofthe mailing date of this final ac