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
`
`06’09’2020
`
`1801 EAST 9TH STREET
`SUITE 1200
`
`CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108
`
`GHORISHI, SEYED BEHROOZ
`
`1748
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`06/09/2020
`
`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):
`
`patdoeket@pearne.eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`017/09 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 4/8/2020.
`CI A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a)[:] 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
`; 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 Expade Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)
`
`Claim(s)
`
`1—6 and 8 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s) 5 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`
`
`E] Claim(ss) _ is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(ss) 1 —4, 6 and 8 is/are rejected.
`
`1:] Claim(ss_) is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`S)
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`C] Claim(s
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, 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.”smogovmatentsflnit_events[pph[index.'§p or send an inquiry to PPeredhack@gsptg.ggv.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10):] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11). The drawing(s) filed on 8/31/2017 is/are: a). accepted or b)D 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)[j None of the:
`
`1.. Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2E] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3C] 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) [3 Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) C] Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) E] 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 20200505
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 2
`
`Detailed Office Action
`
`A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set
`
`forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this
`
`application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set
`
`forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action
`
`has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/8/2020
`
`has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 7 has been cancelled. Claim 5 is
`
`withdrawn from examination. Claims 1-6 and 8 remain pending.
`
`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.
`
`Substance of Interview Held 3/26/2020
`
`The Applicant has correctly summarized the substance of the interview that was
`
`held on 3/26/2020 (see page 5 of 4/8/2020 submission). The interview summary form
`
`submitted by the Examiner on 3/26/2020 indicated that it appears that the proposed
`
`amended limitation of claim 1 reciting that the suction mechanism includes two or more
`
`suction pipes may overcome the prior art of FUKUSHIMA (JP 2002158498), hereinafter
`
`FUKUSHIMA. However, after careful reconsideration of the instant specification and
`
`MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B) and absent of unexpected result(s), the Examiner submits that it
`
`is obvious and within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to have duplicated the
`
`suction pipes in the suction mechanism. This rejection is outlined below in the response
`
`to the argument section and the 35 USC 103 rejection section.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 3
`
`Response to Amendments and Arguments
`
`1.
`
`Applicant’s arguments that cited prior arts of TSUJIKAWA (JP 201410752),
`
`hereinafter TSUJIKAWA, and FUKUSHIMA do not disclose the amended limitations of
`
`claim 1, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive (see filed submission of
`
`4/8/2020, pages 6 and 7).
`
`Applicant states that TSUJIKA WA does not disclose the feature of the amended claim
`
`1, since TSUJIKA WA is silent on the configuration of the suction pipe attached to the
`
`suction mechanism (previously in claim 7), as admitted by the examiner in the Office
`
`action. In the Advisory action, the examiner explained that the numeral 10 on FIG 1a of
`
`FUKUSHIMA was a typographical error and that analysis of claim 7 should have
`
`referred to numeral 12 as the suction pipe. However,
`
`the amended claim 1 requires two
`
`or more suction pipe lines through which a vacuum pressure is applied. FIG. 1a shows
`
`only a single exhaust pipe 12 (the alleged suction pipe).
`
`Applicant statement that TSUJIKAWA does not disclose the feature related to the
`
`suction pipe and mechanism is correct. As stated in the final office action of 1/10/2020
`
`(page 9), the Examiner has relied on FUKUSHIMA for this limitation. Furthermore, the
`
`Applicant is also correct in stating that the suction mechanism of FUKUSHIMA includes
`
`only one suction pipe (see FIG. 1a, numeral 12).
`
`The Examiner has carefully re-reviewed the instant disclosure; it does not
`
`indicate that providing two or more suction pipes results in any unexpected outcome(s).
`
`As such, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one having
`
`ordinary skill
`
`in the art, at the effective filing date of the instant invention,
`
`to have
`
`duplicated the suction pipe of FUKUSHIMA, since it has been held that a mere
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 4
`
`duplication of working parts of adevice involves only routine skill in the art {see MPEP
`
`2144.04 (VI)(B)}.
`
`One would have been motivated to have duplicated the suction pipe for cases
`
`where the upper working surface is large and thus better control of suction can be
`
`imparted in different areas using their own dedicated suction mechanism and pipe. The
`
`Examiner has re-iterated this rejection below in the 35 USC 103 section.
`
`Claim Interpretation
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
`
`(f) Elementin Claim fora Combination—An elementin aclaim fora combination maybe
`expressed as a means orstep forperforming a specified function withoutthe recital of
`structure, material,oracts in supportthereof,and such claim shall be construed to coverthe
`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 fora combination maybe expressed as a meansorstep forperforming
`a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in supportthereof, and
`such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts
`described in 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 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:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 5
`
`(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
`
`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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 6
`
`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, “pressing
`
`mechanism” in claim 1, and “peeling mechanism” in claim 1.
`
`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
`
`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)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 7
`
`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 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.
`
`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 Examiner interprets “pressing mechanism” as a
`
`pressing cylinder 71 and cuboid pressing tool 72 {[0023], Fle. 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], Fle. 3 and 4} and equivalent thereof.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 8
`
`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
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`A patent for a claimed invention maynotbe obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed
`invention is not identicallydisclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the
`claimed invention and the priorartare such that the claimed invention as awhole would have
`been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having
`ordinaryskill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentabilityshall notbe
`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.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 9
`
`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.
`
`5.
`
`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 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 upper surface of the tape slice to an end region of a board
`
`formed of a film-shaped member, and then pulls up the separator from the tape slice 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), [FIG. 1] Tp is the tape and ET is the separator, as seen the end region
`
`of board 2 has the tape 48 attached to the end region, [FIG. 5b] the separator is pulled
`
`up by 27 from tape 48}, 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 48 is attached to the substrate 2 by the pressure bonding head 12,
`
`{[FIG. 5b] pressing mechanism is 30 has a cylinder and cuboid attached to it, also see
`
`section 1 12(f) above};
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 10
`
`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 which is similar to
`
`the claimed peeling mechanism as shown in 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.
`
`In the same filed of endeavor that is related to supporting a flexible board during
`
`a mounting/bonding step, FUKUSHIMA discloses an apparatus that reads on the
`
`applicant claim of 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 aflexible 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 awrinkled 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 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};
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 11
`
`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 have modified the backup stage of TSUJIKAWA
`
`according to the teachings of FUKUSHIMA such that it can support aflexible board
`
`while a taping process in undergoing. 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 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 the next limitation 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 boar
`
`the Examiner notes that the
`
`above limitation recites what and how the disclosed apparatus is configured to do the
`
`process of tape sticking.
`
`The Examiner has shown an apparatus according to the combination of
`
`TSUJIKAWA and FUKUSHIMA with 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 manner in which a claimed apparatus is
`
`intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art
`
`apparatus” {see MPEP 2114 (ll)}.
`
`It is Examiner’s position that combination of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 12
`
`TSUJIKAWA and FUKUSHIMA apparatus is capable of performing the intended
`
`function.
`
`Nevertheless, FUKUSHIMA teaches that its suction apparatus is designed to
`
`properly hold the flexible board while a bonding or a thermocompression bonding (i.e.
`
`sticking) process is implemented on the flexible board {[0004], [0023]}. As such, it is
`
`inherent that when one of ordinary skill in the art combines the holding apparatus of
`
`FUKUSHIMA into the tape apparatus of TSUJIKAWA,
`
`the intent as disclosed by
`
`FUKUSHIMA is to use this holding apparatus when the sticking process is implemented
`
`due to the advantages that FUKUSHIMA discloses regarding the processing of flexible
`
`boards {[0004]}.
`
`Regarding the last and the amended limitation of claim 1 reciting “ 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” FUKUSHIMA discloses one suction pipe that is connected to
`
`the side surface {[FIG. 1a] 12 is the section pipe that is attached to the side surface}.
`
`FUKUSHIMA only discloses one suction pipe and thus, is silent on the limitation
`
`of two or more suction pipes. The Examiner has carefully re-reviewed the instant
`
`disclosure; it does not indicate that providing two or more suction pipes results in any
`
`unexpected outcome(s). As such, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been
`
`obvious to one having ordinary skill
`
`in the art, at the effective filing date of the instant
`
`invention,
`
`to have duplicated the suction pipe of FUKUSHIMA, since it has been held
`
`that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art
`
`{see MPEP 2144.04 (V|)(B)}.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 13
`
`One would have been motivated to have duplicated the suction pipe for cases
`
`where the upper working surface is larger than usual and thus better control of suction
`
`can be imparted in different areas using their own dedicated suction mechanism and
`
`pipe.
`
`Regarding claims 2 and 4, FUKUSHIMA discloses an apparatus that reads on
`
`the applicant claim of 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 (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}
`
`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
`
`suction mechanism sucks the intermediate portion of the board through 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
`
`“interm ediate”) and has suction holes connected to the section mechanism}.
`
`wherein the auxiliary support member is 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}.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 14
`
`TSUJIKAWA according to the teachings of FUKUSHIMA such that awider 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]}.
`
`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 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 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.
`
`6.
`
`Claims 3, 6, and 8 are 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 claims 3, 6, and 8, combination of TSUJIKAWA and FUKUSHIMA
`
`discloses all the limitations of claims 2 and 1 as detailed above. This combination is,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 15
`
`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
`
`each of the plurality of suction ports is sized such that voids are not generated in the
`
`board that is sucked (claim 3) {[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 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 sucked in)}.
`
`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 TAGA to the apparatus of
`
`TSUJIKAWA and FUKUSHIMA in order to provide for an appropriate sizing of the
`
`suction mesh (pore holes) and pipe holes. The advantage of the sizing as disclosed by
`
`TAGA is the even distribution of vacuum such that 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 pm to the
`
`pore holes and claim 8 that assigns a size of 0.3 mm or less to the suction port, as
`
`disclosed above, TAGA teaches the 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 TAGA identifies size of pores and ports to be result-effective variables
`
`{[0056]}.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 16
`
`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 (ll)(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
`
`determine appropriate sizes that result in a very inform distribution of vacuum while no
`
`void or buckling of the flexible substrate is affected.
`
`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 https://ppair-
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/691,846
`Art Unit: 1748
`
`Page 17
`
`my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on accessto 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.
`
`/8. BEHROOZ GHORISHI/
`
`Examiner, Art Unit 1748
`
`/PETER L VAJDA/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
`06/04/2020
`
`