DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 11/17/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-2 have been amended. Claims 1-17 are pending. Claim 17 is withdrawn from further consideration.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The Applicant’s amendments have overcome the claim objections set forth in the office action of 8/20/2025; therefore, the claim objections are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the base substrate in GOLDA is made of silicon and not silicone and therefore, it is not elastic; therefore, GOLDA fails to disclose or otherwise suggest “an elastic sheet comprising a through hole . . . . a pickup portion comprising a shaft portion . . . inserted into the through hole,” as recited by claim 1.
The Examiner agrees that GOLDA teaches a silicon layer and not a silicone layer; however, it is known in the art that silicon is also known for being elastic, as evidenced by OSHIMA [0073].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Golda et al. (U.S. 9,034,754), hereinafter GOLDA, as evidenced by Oshima et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2003/0184985), hereinafter OSHIMA.
Regarding claim 1, GOLDA teaches: An element transfer device (GOLDA teaches an element transfer device [Abstract]) comprising: an elastic sheet comprising a through hole (GOLDA teaches an elastic sheet (silicon layer (140)) comprising a through hole [Fig. 28A; Col. 13, lines 22-24], silicon is an elastic material, as evidenced by OSHIMA [0073].); and a pickup portion comprising a shaft portion (GOLDA teaches a pickup portion (120) comprising a shaft portion [Figs. 28A, 32A, 34].), a first head portion at a first end of the shaft portion (GOLDA shows a first head portion at an end of the shaft portion [Figs. 28A, 32A, 34]), and a second head portion at a second end of the shaft portion (GOLDA shows a second head portion at a second end of the shaft portion [Figs. 28A, 32A, 34]), wherein the first head portion comprises a pickup surface for adhering an element (GOLDA teaches the first head portion comprises a pickup surface (102) for adhering an element (202) [Col. 15, lines 34-42; Figs. 28A, 32A, 34]), the shaft portion is inserted into the through hole (GOLDA shows the shaft portion is in the through hole [Figs. 28A, 32A, 34; Col. 9, lines 17-19]), the first head portion and the second head portion sandwich the elastic sheet (GOLDA teaches the silicon layer (140) is between the first head portion and the second head portion [Figs. 28A, 32A].), and an outer diameter of the first head portion and an outer diameter of the second head portion are larger than an opening diameter of the through hole (GOLDA shows the outer diameters of the first and second head portions are larger than the through hole [Figs. 28A, 32A]).
Regarding claim 3, GOLDA teaches: wherein the outer diameter of the first head portion is larger than a first opening diameter of a first opening surface of the through hole in a direction of the first head portion (GOLDA shows the first head portion is larger than a first opening of a first opening surface of the through hole in a direction of the first head portion [Figs. 28A, 32A]), the outer diameter of the second head portion is larger than a second opening diameter of a second opening surface of the through hole in a direction of the second head portion (GOLDA shows the outer diameter of the second head portion is larger than a second opening of a second opening surface of the through hole in a direction of the second head portion [Figs. 28A, 32A]), and the first opening diameter is larger than the second opening diameter (GOLDA teaches shows the first opening diameter is larger than the second opening diameter [Figs. 28A, 32A].).
Regarding claim 5, GOLDA teaches: wherein a shape of the pickup surface is one selected from a group consisting of a circular shape, an ellipsoid shape, and a polygonal shape (GOLDA teaches the pickup surface can be a polygonal shape [Fig. 32B]).
Regarding claim 6, GOLDA teaches: wherein a cross- sectional shape of the shaft portion is one selected from a group consisting of a circular shape, an ellipsoid shape, and a polygonal shape (GOLDA shows the cross-section shape is a polygonal shape [Fig. 32B]).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golda et al. (U.S. 9,034,754), hereinafter GOLDA.
Regarding claim 4, GOLDA does not explicitly teach: wherein each of the through hole and the shaft portion comprises a taper. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for the shaft comprises a taper, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. Further, one would have been motivated to select the shape of a taper for the purpose of alleviating lithographic challenges associated with forming openings [Col. 9, lines 45-50].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golda et al. (U.S. 9,034,754), hereinafter GOLDA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wanesky (U.S. 3,690,984), hereinafter WANESKY.
Regarding claim 2, GOLDA teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, including: wherein a plurality of pairs of the through holes and the pickup portion is arranged at a predetermined distance (GOLDA shows the through holes and pickup portion is arranged at a predetermined distance [Figs. 28A, 32A]), but is silent as to: the predetermined distance is adjusted by stretching and shrinking the elastic sheet. In the same field of endeavor, transferring devices, WANESKY teaches distance between individual devices of an array is increased by stretching a substrate on which the array is temporarily held [Figs. 31-33; Col. 3, lines 58-65]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify GOLDA, by adjusting the distance by stretching, as suggested by WANESKY, in order to increase spacing between devices [Col. orient the devices in preparation for securing to a final device [Col. 10, lines 17-24].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golda et al. (U.S. 9,034,754), hereinafter GOLDA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kobayashi et al. (U.S PGPUB 2004/0134603), hereinafter KOBAYASHI.
Regarding claim 7, GOLDA teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but is silent as to: wherein the shaft portion is movable in the through hole. In the same field of endeavor, moving devices, KOBAYASHI teaches the concept of a shaft that moves up and down inside the center of a hole in an elastic body [0063]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify GOLDA, by having the shaft be movable in the elastic body, as suggested by KOBAYASHI, in order to provide accurate centering [0063].
Claim(s) 8-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golda et al. (U.S. 9,034,754), hereinafter GOLDA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Furuya et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2012/0134065), hereinafter FURUYA.
Regarding claim 8, GOLDA teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but is silent as to: wherein a plurality of wires is provided in the elastic sheet. In the same field of endeavor, transfer devices, FURUYA teaches substrates/layers (30/29/28/14, 74, 76) have a plurality of wires in them [Figs. 13A-13D; 0061-0062; Fig. 9A; 0049-0050]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify GOLDA, by having wirings in the substrates, as suggested by FURUYA, in order to apply charges to the chips [0052].
Regarding claim 9, FURUYA further teaches: wherein the plurality of wires comprises a first wire and a second wire, the first wire extends in a first direction, and the second wire extends in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction (FURUYA teaches the plurality of wires comprise a first wire (36) and a second wire (31) and the first wire extends in a first direction and the second wire extends in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction [Fig. 9A; 0050]).
Regarding claim 10, FURUYA further teaches: wherein the first wire and the second wire are not in contact with the shaft portion (FURUYA shows the first wire (36) and the second wire (31) are not in contact with the shaft in layer 14 [Fig. 9A]).
Regarding claim 11, FURUYA further teaches: wherein the first wire is located in a first hollow tube provided in the elastic sheet (FURUYA teaches the first wire (36) penetrates an insulating layer and would form a tube for the wiring to move through [0049]), and the second wire is located in a second hollow tube provided in the elastic sheet (FURUYA also teaches the wire is located in another insulating layer and would form a tube for the wiring to also move through [0049; Fig. 9A]).
Regarding claim 12, FURUYA further teaches: wherein the first hollow tube is not connected to the second hollow tube (FURUYA teaches the insulating layers are separate from each other [Fig. 9A; 0049]).
Regarding claim 13, FURUYA further teaches: wherein each of the plurality of wires is connected to the shaft portion (FURUYA teaches a plurality of wires is connected to the shaft portion [Figs. 13B-13C]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify GOLDA, by having wirings in the shaft, as suggested by FURUYA, in order to apply charges to the chips [0052].
Regarding claim 14, GOLDA teaches: wherein the elastic sheet is divided into a plurality of parts (GOLDA teaches in another embodiment that the elastic sheet can have a silicon layer (140) and a base substrate (130) [Fig. 18A; Col. 13, lines 20-23]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify GOLDA, by having a plurality of parts of the elastic sheet in order to connect working circuitry of the transfer head [Fig. 18A; Col. 13, lines 20-26]).
Regarding claim 15, FURUYA further teaches: wherein the plurality of wires is in contact with the elastic sheet (FURUYA teaches a plurality of wires is in contact with the elastic sheet (14) [Fig. 7A; 0045-0046]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify GOLDA, by having wirings in the substrates/layers, as suggested by FURUYA, in order to apply charges to the chips [0052].
Regarding claim 16, GOLDA teaches: wherein the elastic sheet is divided into a plurality of parts (GOLDA teaches in another embodiment that the elastic sheet can have a silicon layer (140) and a base substrate (130) [Fig. 18A; Col. 13, lines 20-23]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify GOLDA, by having a plurality of parts of the elastic sheet in order to connect working circuitry of the transfer head [Fig. 18A; Col. 13, lines 20-26]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
Examiner interviews are available via phone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may 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 at (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 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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748