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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/12/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed 12/12/2025 have been entered and considered. The amendments to claims 1, 3, 10 and 11 and the cancellation of claim 2 are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3 and 11 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.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 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 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.
Claims 1, 3, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tallat et al. US 20170077186 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Tallal, in view of Oohata et al. US 20030087476 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Oohata).
Regarding claim 1, Tallal teaches
A photosensitive transfer resin for transferring an chip, comprising:
a blended composition of a photosensitive resin (“novolak” para. 0080) and a photoactive agent solution (“a photoactive compound (diazo-compound, generally diazonaphtoquinone” dissolved in “PGMEA solvent”, para. 0080),
wherein the photoactive agent solution being obtained by a mix of a solvent and a photoactive agent powder (“a photoactive compound (diazo-compound, generally diazonaphtoquinone” dissolved in “PGMEA solvent”, para. 0080),
However, Tallal fails to expressly teach wherein the photosensitive transfer resin is configured such that after a photo-induced degradation layer containing a liquid acid is formed by ultraviolet (UV) irradiation, a predetermined heat is applied without a development process, thereby expanding the liquid acid in the photo-induced degradation layer to selectively peel or transfer only the LED chip attached to the expanded photo-induced degradation layer, and wherein an adhesive strength of the photosensitive transfer resin after the UV irradiation is maintained at a level equivalent to an adhesive strength of the photosensitive transfer resin before the UV irradiation.
Nevertheless, Tallal teaches a substantially identical composition to that recited in the claims and specification. Tallal teaches novolak mixed with a diazonaphtoquinone and PGMEA. An example diazonaphtoquinone is “3-Diazo-3,4-dihydro-4-oxonaphthalene-1-sulfonyl chloride” and comes in powder form as evidenced in Sigma-Aldrich Product Specification. As evidenced in page 626 under “What happens on Expoure?” of Reiser et al. “The molecular mechanism of novolak-diazonaphthoquinone resists”, when exposed to light, diazonaphtoquinones loose nitrogen and produce carboxylic acid as taught in the specification. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the composition in Tallal exhibits the same properties as claimed because it is the same composition indicated in the claim and specification. As indicated in MPEP 2112.01 Section I, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the photosensitive resin, photoactive agent powder, and solvent taught in Tallal has the same properties as those claimed. The composition is substantially identical to that claimed and taught in the specification. The composition is understood to form a photo-induced degradation layer containing a liquid acid is formed by ultraviolet irradiation and the liquid acid expands to peel off only the LED chip on the expanded photo-induced degradation layer. Unexposed portions are understood to maintain a same adhesive strength.
However, Tallal fails to teach an LED chip.
Nevertheless, Oohata teaches
an LED chip ("device 3" which includes a light-emitting device, thin film diode device, or LIP (LED in Plastic), para. 047 FIG. 1A-1C).
Tallal and Oohata teach the use of adhesive layers to transfer semiconductor devices. The semiconductor devices in Oohata include LEDs and are transferred from a "base substrate 1" toa "transfer substrate 4" (para. 0049 FIG. 1A-1C). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that LED chips can be transferred from a first substrate to another with the use of photosensitive resin transfer resins so that only specific LED chips are transferred for forming display devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chip transfer apparatus taught in Tallal with the LED chips taught in Oohata. The apparatus comprising the photosensitive transfer resin can be used to transfer LED chips and form display devices.
Regarding claim 10, Tallal, modified by Oohata, teaches the photosensitive transfer resin for transferring an LED chip of Claim 1, wherein a photo-deteriorating layer the photo-induced degradation layer is formed by exposing by UV light through a mask, which is configured to irradiate a selective region of the photosensitive transfer resin, and the photo-induced degradation layer is expanded by an application of predetermined heat to enable a selective peel off or transfer of only an LED chip located at the photo-deteriorating layer photo-induced degradation layer (as indicated in the rejection of claim 1, the composition in Tallal is substantially identical to the claimed composition and is understood to show the same behavior and properties. From in MPEP 2112.01 Section I, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).”)
Regarding claim 3, Tallal teaches
A chip transfer apparatus using a photosensitive transfer resin, comprising:
a substrate (“substrate 10” para. 0079); and
a photosensitive transfer resin layer formed on the substrate and made of a blended composition of a photosensitive resin (“novolak” para. 0080) and a photoactive agent solution (“a photoactive compound (“diazo-compound, generally diazonaphtoquinone” dissolved in “PGMEA solvent”, para. 0080), wherein the photoactive agent solution being obtained by a mix of a solvent and a photoactive agent powder (“a photoactive compound (diazo-compound, generally diazonaphtoquinone” dissolved in “PGMEA solvent”, para. 0080); and
However, Tallal fails to expressly teach wherein the photosensitive transfer resin layer which expands at a predetermined temperature, the photosensitive transfer resin is configured such that after a photo-induced degradation layer containing a liquid acid is formed by ultraviolet (UV) irradiation, a predetermined heat is applied without a development process, thereby expanding the liquid acid in the photo-induced degradation layer to selectively peel or transfer only the LED chip attached to the expanded photo-induced degradation layer, and wherein an adhesive strength of the photosensitive transfer resin after the UV irradiation is maintained at a level equivalent to an adhesive strength of the photosensitive transfer resin before the UV irradiation.
Nevertheless, Tallal teaches a substantially identical composition to that recited in the claims and specification. Tallal teaches novolak mixed with a diazonaphtoquinone and PGMEA. An example diazonaphtoquinone is “3-Diazo-3,4-dihydro-4-oxonaphthalene-1-sulfonyl chloride” and comes in powder form as evidenced in Sigma-Aldrich Product Specification. As evidenced in page 626 under “What happens on Expoure?” of Reiser et al. “The molecular mechanism of novolak-diazonaphthoquinone resists”, when exposed to light, diazonaphtoquinones loose nitrogen and produce carboxylic acid as taught in the specification. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the composition in Tallal exhibits the same properties as claimed because it is the same composition indicated in the claim and specification. As indicated in MPEP 2112.01 Section I, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the photosensitive resin, photoactive agent powder, and solvent taught in Tallal has the same properties as those claimed. The composition is substantially identical to that claimed and taught in the specification. The composition is understood to form a photo-induced degradation layer containing a liquid acid is formed by ultraviolet irradiation and the liquid acid expands to peel off only the chip on the expanded photo-induced degradation layer. Unexposed portions are understood to maintain a same adhesive strength.
However, Tallatl fails to teach an LED chip.
Nevertheless, Oohata teaches
an LED chip ("device 3" which includes a light-emitting device, thin film diode device, or LIP (LED in Plastic), para. 047 FIG. 1A-1C).
Tallal and Oohata teach the use of adhesive layers to transfer semiconductor devices. The semiconductor devices in Oohata include LEDs and are transferred from a "base substrate 1" toa "transfer substrate 4" (para. 0049 FIG. 1A-1C). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that LED chips can be transferred from a first substrate to another with the use of photosensitive resin transfer resins so that only specific LED chips are transferred for forming display devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chip transfer apparatus taught in Tallal with the LED chips taught in Oohata. The apparatus comprising the photosensitive transfer resin can be used to transfer LED chips and form display devices.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tallal and Oohata as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Jacovich et al. US 5206348 A (hereinafter referred to as Jacovich).
Tallal, modified by Oohata, teaches the photosensitive transfer resin for transferring an LED chip of Claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the photoactive agent powder is equal to or larger than 4% by weight.
Nevertheless, Jacovich taches
wherein the photoactive agent powder is equal to or larger than 4% by weight (2-20%, preferably 5-15%, by weight photoactive sensitizer in the photoresist formulation, col 5 lines 1-13).
Tallal and Jacovich teach positive photoresists comprising novolak, a dizonaphthoquinone as the photoactive agent, and PGMEA solvent (col 4 lines 43-51, 52-53, and 64-67, and col 5 lines 6-9). Jacovich indicates in col 5 lines 9-13 that the typical concentration of photoactive sensitizer is 2-20% by weight. The photoactive compounds in the sensitizer achieve a thermally stable positive photoresist as compared to photoresists showing the same photospeed, thermal behavior, resolution, and loss of unexposed areas (col 3 lines 46-52 and col 11 lines 9-15). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that percentage by weight ranges of photoactive agent in the photoresist are suitable for forming a photoresist with improved thermal stability.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the photosensitive transfer resin in Tallal with the photoactive agent powder amount as taught in Jacovich. A concentration of 4% by weight or greater of the agents in Jacovich produce a resin with improved thermal stability.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horibe US 20180096877 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Horibe), in view of Tallal et al. US 20170077186 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Tallal), in view of Oohata et al. US 20030087476 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Oohata).
Horibe teaches
An LED chip transfer apparatus using a photosensitive transfer resin (the structure including “first support glass wafer 204”, “photo mask 502”, “chips 104”, “first adhesive layer 202”, “second adhesive layer 704”, and the “second support glass wafer 702” as shown in FIG. 1-9, para. 0026-0035) comprising:
a substrate (“first support glass wafer 204”);
a photosensitive transfer resin layer (“first adhesive layer 202”) formed on the substrate
a photo-induced degradation layer (“exposed adhesive regions 602”, para. 0035) of a specific region of the photosensitive transfer resin layer,
wherein the photo-induced degradation layer is exposed by UV irradiation through a mask (“masks 502”), which is configured to irradiate a selective region of the photosensitive transfer resin (regions exposed by “masks 502” are irradiated with ultraviolet light, para. 0033 FIG. 6)
wherein only the chip attached to the exposed photo-degrading layer is selectively peeled off, or transferred (“exposed adhesive regions 602 break and chips 504 are pulled away with the second support glass wafer 702” para. 0036), and
wherein an adhesive strength of the photosensitive transfer resin after the UV irradiation is maintained at a level equivalent to an adhesive strength of the photosensitive transfer resin before the UV irradiation (“the unexposed portions of the first adhesive layer 202 on the first support glass wafer retain their full adhesive strength” para. 0035),
the chip attached to the exposed photo-degrading layer is selectively peeled off (“The exposed adhesive regions 602 break and chips 504 are pulled away with the second support glass wafer 702” para. 0036).
However, Horibe fails to teach an LED chip, the photosensitive transfer resin made of a blended composition of a photosensitive resin and a photoactive agent solution which expands at a predetermined temperature, wherein the photoactive solution is a mix of a solvent and a photoactive powder; the mask is configured to irradiate a selective region of the photosensitive transfer resin to generate an acid in liquid state, the acid of the photo-induced degradation layer expands by an application of predetermined heat without a development process after the UV irradiation, the LED chip attached to the expanded photo-degrading layer is selectively peeled off or transferred.
Nevertheless, Tallal teaches
the photosensitive transfer resin layer formed on the substrate and made of a blended composition of a photosensitive resin and a photoactive agent solution (“novolak” para. 0080) and a photoactive agent solution (“a photoactive compound (diazo-compound, generally diazonaphtoquinone” dissolved in “PGMEA solvent”, para. 0080), wherein the photoactive solution is a mix of a solvent and a photoactive powder (“diazo-compound, generally diazonaphtoquinone” dissolved in “PGMEA solvent”, para. 0080).
Horibe and Tallal teach the use of photosensitive layers. Tallal teaches a substantially identical composition to that recited in the claims and specification. Tallal teaches novolak mixed with a diazonaphtoquinone and PGMEA. An example diazonaphtoquinone is “3-Diazo-3,4-dihydro-4-oxonaphthalene-1-sulfonyl chloride” and comes in powder form as evidenced in Sigma-Aldrich Product Specification. As evidenced in page 626 under “What happens on Expoure?” of Reiser et al. “The molecular mechanism of novolak-diazonaphthoquinone resists”, when exposed to light, diazonaphtoquinones loose nitrogen and produce carboxylic acid as taught in the specification. The composition becomes soluble in a solvent after beingexposed to UV light (Tallal para 0084), which allows for easy removal of the exposed portions while the unexposed portions remain unaffected as further explained in Fournier et al. US 20090197295 A1 (para. 0079). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the composition in Tallal can be patterned with a mask and portions exposed to UV are easy to remove. The exhibits the same properties as claimed because it is the same composition indicated in the claim and specification. As indicated in MPEP 2112.01 Section I, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the photosensitive resin, photoactive agent powder, and solvent taught in Tallal is a suitable alternative for use a photosensitive transfer resin for its ability to be patterned with a mask and with the added benefit of being easy to remove the portions exposed to UV light. The photosensitive transfer resin has the same properties as those claimed since it is substantially identical to that claimed and taught in the specification. The composition is understood to form a photo-induced degradation layer containing a liquid acid is formed by ultraviolet irradiation and the liquid acid expands to peel off only the chip on the expanded photo-induced degradation layer. Unexposed portions are understood to maintain a same adhesive strength.
However, Horibe, modified by Tallal, fail to teach an LED chip.
Nevertheless, Oohata teaches
an LED chip ("device 3" which includes a light-emitting device, thin film diode device, or LIP (LED in Plastic), para. 047 FIG. 1A-1C).
Horibe, modified by Tallal, and Oohata teach the use of adhesive layers to transfer semiconductor devices. The semiconductor devices in Oohata include LEDs and are transferred from a "base substrate 1" toa "transfer substrate 4" (para. 0049 FIG. 1A-1C). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that LED chips can be transferred from a first substrate to another with the use of photosensitive resin transfer resins so that only specific LED chips are transferred for forming display devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chip transfer apparatus taught between Horibe and Tallal with the LED chips taught in Oohata. The apparatus comprising the photosensitive transfer resin can be used to transfer LED chips and form display devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC MULERO FLORES whose telephone number is (571)270-0070. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm (typically).
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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at (571)272-1864. 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.
/ERIC MANUEL MULERO FLORES/ Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898