DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is a response to the amendment filed on 10/7/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 7-8 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 claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Re. claim 7: The phrase “wherein a moving camera is mounted at the top of the second holder” as recited in lines 1-2 renders the claim vague and indefinite. According to the limitation as recited in line 12 of claim 1, the one or more vision systems comprise stationary and moving cameras. It appears to be that one vision system includes a stationary camera and a moving camera. It is unclear as to whether the moving camera is a new moving camera or the moving camera as recited in line 12 of claim 1. Clarification is required.
Re. claim 8: The phrase “wherein two stationery cameras are fixed and mounted at both sides of the first holder” as recited in lines 1-2 renders the claim vague and indefinite. According to the limitation as recited in line 12 of claim 1, the one or more vision systems comprise stationary and moving cameras. It appears to be that one vision system includes a stationary camera and a moving camera. It is unclear as to where the two stationery cameras are come from. Are they come from different vision systems or the same vision system? Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda et al. (PGPub 2018/0235118 A1) in view of Wallack et al. (US PAT. 9,393,694).
Okuda et al. teach a transferring apparatus comprising: a first holder (2) to hold a substrate (3) as shown in Fig. 1; a second holder (9, 10) to hold a transfer medium (8), wherein the transfer medium comprises a device (a head) as shown in Fig. 1; a first alignment system (6) coupled to the second holder to move the second holder in a first direction (Y-direction) relative lo one dimension of the substrate to transfer the device or the pattern; and a second alignment system (7) coupled to the second holder to move the second holder in a second direction (X-direction) relative to another dimension of the substrate to transfer the device or the pattern to the substrate as shown in Fig. 1, wherein the transferring apparatus is operable to transfer a plurality of devices and patterns (such as components) to the substrate (see also paragraphs [0022]-[0023]), wherein one or more vision systems (30, 31) coupled to the first and second holder to capture alignment marks (see also paragraphs [0043]-[0044]), wherein the one or more vision systems comprise stationary and moving cameras as shown in Figs. 1-2.
However, Okuda et al. fails to teach the stationary and moving cameras both comprise precise machine vision cameras. Wallack et al. teach a system having a machine vision system including a stationary and moving cameras both comprise precise machine vision cameras (i.e. the robot is moved to a plurality of poses and images are acquired of a calibration object, such as a calibration plate, that is affixed to an end effector of the robot and which contains features at accurately known positions. Alternatively, a calibration object is fixed in space and camera(s) are mounted on the robot, which is then moved to a plurality of poses at which images are acquired of the calibration object. The machine vision system is utilized to analyze the acquired images by measuring the positions of the features in the image. The specified robot poses and the measured image feature positions are utilized to determine the relationship between the machine vision system's coordinate system and the robot's coordinate system, col. 3, lines 20-33 and 53-56). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify a transferring apparatus of Okuda et al. by a precise machine vision cameras of the stationary and moving cameras both comprise as taught by Wallack et al. in order to improve calibrations between the alignment systems.
Re. claim 2: Okuda et al. also teach that the alignment marks are provided on the substrate and the transfer medium as shown in Figs. 2 and 8 (see also paragraph [0077]).
Re. claim 5: Okuda et al. also teach that the first holder is movable along the second direction of the transferring apparatus as shown in Figs. 1-2.
Re. claim 14: Okuda et al. also teach a process to transfer a device or a pattern to a substrate comprising steps of: providing a first holder to hold a substrate as shown in Fig. 1; providing a second holder to hold a transfer medium, wherein the transfer medium comprises one of the device or the pattern as shown in Fig. 1; moving the second holder in a first direction relative to one dimension of the substrate to transfer the device or the pattern as shown in Fig. 1; moving the second holder in a second direction relative to another dimension of the substrate to transfer the device or the pattern to the substrate as shown in Fig. 1; and repeating the transferring steps to transfer a plurality of devices and patterns to the substrate as shown in Fig. 9 (see also paragraph [0084]-[0088].
Re. claim 15: Okuda et al. also teach that a first alignment system and a second alignment system coupled to the second holder move the second holder in the first and the second direction, respectively as shown in Fig. 1.
Claims 12, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda et al. in view of Wallack et al.
Okuda et al., modified by Wallack et al., teach all limitations as set forth above, but silent whether the substrate is wafer, a backplane wafer, or a growth substrate, and whether the transfer medium is a cartridge wafer, a donor wafer, or a mask. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the substrate or the transfer medium as recited in the claimed invention because Applicant has not disclosed that the substrate or the transfer medium as recited in the claimed invention provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable rangers involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (il-A). The applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the substrate or the transfer medium of Okuda et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claims 12 and 13.
Re. claim 16: Okuda et al., modified by Wallack et al., teach all limitations as set forth above, but silent a micro light emitting device. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable rangers including a micro light emitting device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (il-A). Therefore, since such a modification would have been an obvious design consideration that is within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the well-known benefit of providing desirable components.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8 and 12-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6:00 AM-2:00 PM.
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, Aneeta Yodichkas can be reached at 571-272-9773. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL D KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729