www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`
`15/691,846
`
`08/31/2017
`
`SATOSHI ADACHI
`
`PIPMM-57948
`
`2966
`
`759°
`52°“
`PEARNE & GORDON LLP
`
`08’0””
`
`1801 EAST 9TH STREET
`SUITE 1200
`
`CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108
`
`GHORISHI, SEYED BEHROOZ
`
`1748
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`08/09/2019
`
`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):
`
`patdoeket@pearne.eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`0/7709 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/691,846
`Examiner
`8. B GHORISHI
`
`Applicant(s)
`ADACHI et al.
`Art Unit
`1748
`
`AIA (FITF) Status
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from 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, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 8/31/2017.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a)D This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)
`
`This action is non-final.
`
`3). An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on 3
`1 July 2019; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4):] 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 Expat/7e Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)
`
`Claim(s) fl is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s) 5 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`1:] Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) fl is/are rejected.
`
`Claim(s) a is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`El Claim(s)
`9
`* If any claims have been determined aflowabie. you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`httpfiwww.”smogovmatentszinit_events[pph[index.'§p or send an inquiry to PPeredhack@g§ptg.ggv.
`
`Application Papers
`10)E] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11). The drawing(s) filed on 8/31/2017 is/are: a). accepted or b)[:] 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:
`
`a). All
`
`b)C] Some**
`
`c)l:] None of the:
`
`1.. Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2D Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3D 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)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) C] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20190806
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 2
`
`Detailed Office Action
`
`The communication dated 08/31/2017 has been entered and fully considered.
`
`Claims 1-5 are pending. Claim 5 is withdrawn from examination.
`
`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
`
`Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
`
`l. Claims 1-4, drawn to a tape sticking apparatus, classified in H01 L21/67132.
`
`ll. Claim 5, drawn to tape sticking method, classified in H01L21/6836.
`
`The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
`
`Inventions II and l are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The
`
`inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be
`
`practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus
`
`as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process.
`
`(MPEP §
`
`806.05(e)).
`
`In this case, the apparatus of invention I can be used to practice a method
`
`of sticking tape on a board without the vacuum application step recited in the method
`
`claim 5.
`
`Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the
`
`inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above
`
`and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not
`
`required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 3
`
`The invention in Group I would require a search in at least H01 L21/67132 along
`
`with a unique text search. The invention in Group II would require a search in at least
`
`H01L21/6836 along with a unique text search.
`
`Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must
`
`include (i) an election of a invention to be examined even though the requirement
`
`may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing
`
`the elected invention.
`
`The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a
`
`right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly
`
`and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election
`
`shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time
`
`of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement
`
`will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after
`
`the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the
`
`elected invention.
`
`Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably
`
`distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record
`
`showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is
`
`the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable
`
`over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C.
`
`103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
`
`During a telephone conversation with Michael Garvey on 7/31/2019 a provisional
`
`election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-4.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 4
`
`Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action.
`
`Claim 5 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as
`
`being drawn to a non-elected invention.
`
`Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected
`
`invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one
`
`or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim
`
`remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a)
`
`must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that
`
`identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required
`
`under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
`
`The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and
`
`process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all
`
`product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims
`
`that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be
`
`considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must
`
`include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process
`
`invention to be rejoined.
`
`In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the
`
`product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the
`
`rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37
`
`CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for
`
`patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all
`
`claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 5
`
`restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be
`
`maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an
`
`allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04.
`
`Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims
`
`should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the
`
`product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note
`
`that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply
`
`where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent
`
`issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
`
`Claim Objections
`
`1.
`
`Claims 2 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
`
`Regarding claim 2 and in line 8: add “be” after “to” and before “open”.
`
`Regarding claim 3 and in line 3: replace “to be” with “that is”.
`
`Appropriate correction is required.
`
`Claim Interpretation
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
`
`(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. — An element in a claim for a combination may be
`expressed as a means or 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
`corresponding structure, 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 element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or 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 corresponding structure, material, or acts
`described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 6
`
`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 by one of ordinary 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-AIA 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.,
`
`“means for”) 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
`
`limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 7
`
`paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or
`
`acts to entirely perform the recited function.
`
`Absence of 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 without reciting 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.
`
`Because this/these claim 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 8
`
`cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the
`
`claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
`
`lf 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-AIA
`
`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-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 1 and 2 have the 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.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 1 12
`
`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.
`
`3.
`
`Claims 1-4 are 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 9
`
`claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the
`
`applicant regards as the invention.
`
`The preamble of apparatus claim 1
`
`is lengthy and it appears to recites essential
`
`limitations of the structure of the claim apparatus (backup stage and separator). If these
`
`limitations are essential to the structure of the apparatus they need to be recited in the
`
`body of the claim following the transitional phrase “comprising”. Therefore it is clear
`
`what constitute the apparatus of claim 1. As such the metes and bounds of claim 1
`
`is
`
`unclear and this claim and its dependent claims 2-4 are rejected. For the purpose of
`
`examination, the Examiner interprets the two limitations of “backup stage” and
`
`“separator” to be part of the apparatus of claim 1.
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 10
`
`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.
`
`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 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.
`
`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.
`
`4.
`
`Claims 1, 2, and 4 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, TSUJIKAWA teaches A tape sticking apparatus which
`
`supports an end region of a board formed of a film-shaped member by a backup stage,
`
`presses a tape slice for bonding a component against the end region of the board
`
`together with a separator attached to an upper surface of the tape slice to stick the tape
`
`slice to the end region of the board, and then pulls up the separator from the tape slice
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 11
`
`to separate the separator from the tape slice {[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), [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. 1] Tp is the tape and ET is the separator, as seen the end region of board 2 is
`
`supported by backup stage 3 and tape 48 attached to the end region, [FIG. 5b] the
`
`separator is pulled up by 27 from tape 48}.
`
`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.
`
`In the same filed of endeavor that is related to supporting a flexible board during
`
`a mounting step, FUKUSHIMA discloses a porous material portion which is provided at
`
`an upper portion 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 used to place the FPC (flexible board) on the holding stage, there
`
`is a risk that the FPC may be placed in 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 comprising a first suction surface
`
`member in which a plurality of first holes for vacuum suctioning the tip (end region) of a
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 12
`
`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}.
`
`At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the backup stage of TSUJIKAWA according to
`
`the teachings of FUKUSHIMA such that it can support a flexible board. As disclosed by
`
`FUKUSHIMA, flexible boards, during mounting and tape sticking process, can
`
`potentially undergo wrinkling that results in non-uniform bonding {[0004]}. In the instant
`
`case, one would be motivated to incorporate the porosity and suction structure of the
`
`backup stage of FUKUSHIMA in the tape sticking apparatus of TSUJIKAWA in order to
`
`successfully provide for a uniform bonding of the tape across the end region of the
`
`board of TSUJIKAWA.
`
`Regarding claim 2, FUKUSHIMA discloses an auxiliary support member which is
`
`provided in the backup stage, of which an upper surface has the same height as a
`
`height of an upper surface of the porous material portion {[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}
`
`and which 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 the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 13
`
`suction mechanism sucks the intermediate portion of the board through a plurality of
`
`suction ports provided to open to the upper surface of the auxiliary support member
`
`{[FIG. 1] 5b supports the wider section of the board (see below for “intermediate”) and
`
`has suction holes connected to the section mechanism}.
`
`At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art to extend or enlarge 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 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
`
`rearrange the auxiliary stage 5a or 5b of FUKUSHIMA {[FIG. 1]} in the length direction
`
`of the board (in the intermediate section adjacent to the end section when viewed
`
`across the 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 place 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 14
`
`Regarding claim 4, FUKUSHIMA discloses wherein the auxiliary support member
`
`is detachably attached to the backup stage {[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}.
`
`5.
`
`Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TSUJIKAWA
`
`and FUKUSHIMA as applied to claims 2 and 1 above, and further in view of TAGA
`
`(US/2014-0083617), hereinafter TAGA.
`
`Regarding claim 3, combination of TSUJIKAWA and FUKUSHIMA discloses all
`
`the limitations of claims 2 and 1. This combination is, however, silent on sizing the
`
`suction hole so that voids are not generated in the board.
`
`In the same filed of endeavor that is related to tape sticking apparatus, TAGA
`
`discloses wherein a hole diameter of each of the plurality of suction ports is sized such
`
`that voids are not generated in the board to be sucked {[0056] as shown in FIGS. 2A
`
`and 28, a mesh cap 14a with a number of small holes formed there through is provided.
`
`This mesh cap 14a is provided to increase the effective cross section when air is
`
`sucked, while preventing the rubber sheet 10 from being sucked into the second
`
`supply/exhaust pipe 14 (indicates sizing of the holes to distribute vacuum uniformly
`
`(thus prevent void creation) and not so large such that the flexible board is sucked in)}.
`
`At the filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to apply teaching of TAGA to the apparatus of TSUJIKAWA and
`
`FUKUSHIMA in order to provide for an appropriate sizing of the suction mesh. The
`
`advantage of the sizing as disclosed by TAGA is the even distribution of vacuum such
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 15
`
`that no void (lack of suction) is created and at the same time the flexible board is not
`
`sucked in {[0056]}.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI whose telephone number is
`
`(571)272-1373. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-(alt Fri) 7:30-5:00.
`
`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, Abbas Rashid can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the
`
`Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for
`
`published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
`
`Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
`
`For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should
`
`you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
`
`Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a
`
`USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information
`
`system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272—1000.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 16
`
`/S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI/
`
`Examiner, Art Unit 1748
`
`/Anthony Calandra/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
`
`