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 2/1/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US PAT. 10,804,132).
Kim et al. teach a process of transferring a light-emitting element, comprising steps of: transferring the light-emitting element (10, Fig. 1) placed onto a surface of a supporting stage (50) to a predetermined position by a transferring component (not shown, paragraphs col. 3, lines 5-25), wherein the predetermined position is spaced apart a distance from at least one vacuum hole (127), and the distance is greater than half of a width of the light-emitting element as shown in Fig. 2E; and
PNG
media_image1.png
402
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
vacuuming the at least one vacuum hole to attract the light-emitting element, wherein a transferring direction of the light-emitting element is parallel to the surface of the supporting stage (Figs. 2A-2D, col. 5, lines 1-26).
PNG
media_image2.png
338
412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
322
398
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re. claim 6: A length of the at least one vacuum hole is less than the width of the light-emitting element as shown in Fig. 1.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tada et al. (US PAT. 9,549,495).
Tada et al. teach a process of transferring an element (equivalent with a light-emitting element), comprising steps of: transferring the element (4, Fig. 2) placed onto a surface of a supporting stage (20, Fig. 2) to a predetermined position by a transferring component (23, Fig. 2, col. 3, lines 29-43), wherein the predetermined position is spaced apart a distance from at least one vacuum hole (34, Figs. 1 and 2), and the distance is greater than half of a width of the element as shown in Fig. 2; and vacuuming the at least one vacuum hole to attract the element, wherein a transferring direction (X or Y directions, Fig. 2) of the light-emitting element is parallel to the surface of the supporting stage (Fig. 2 and Fig. 4A, col. 4, lines 11-34).
Re. claim 6: A length of the at least one vacuum hole is less than the width of the light-emitting element as shown in Fig. 4A.
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Furuta (US PAT. 6,153,887).
Kim et al. teach all limitations as set forth above, but silent sensing a pressure in the at least one vacuum hole. Furuta teaches a process of attracting an attraction object via a nozzle hole by vacuum and transporting the attraction object in order to determine whether the object is present when the vacuum is applied (col. 5,lines 20-28). 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 process of transferring a light-emitting element of Kim et al. by providing a pressure sensor as taught by Furuta in order to determine whether the object is present when the vacuum is applied.
Re. claim 3: Furuta also teaches that the transferring component transfers the light-emitting element toward the at least one vacuum hole when the pressure is less than 3 a predetermined value (col. 5,lines 20-28).
Re. claim 4: Even though Furuta silent a predetermined value of the pressure in the at least one vacuum hole, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pressure in the at least one vacuum hole as recited in the claimed invention because Applicant has not disclosed that the pressure in the at least one vacuum hole as recited in the claimed invention provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with Furuta because the pressure in the at least one vacuum hole as recited in the claimed invention would perform equally well such as holding the light-emitting element while transferring in Furuta. 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 to modify the pressure in the at least one vacuum hole of Furuta to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawai et al. (US PAT. 5.185.633).
Kim et al. teach all limitations as set forth above, but silent sensing a light emitted from the light-emitting element. Kawai et al. teach an image forming apparatus comprising a rotatable transfer drum and chucking member provided at the transfer drum for chucking a transfer paper on the transfer drum and a sensor provided in the vicinity of the transfer drum for detecting the light passing through the transfer drum (i.e. As shown in FIG. 1, a sensor 16 for detecting mischucking is disposed at a position a small distance forwardly away, with respect to the direction of rotation of the drum 7, from the position where the copy paper supplied by the paper feeder 9 is chucked by the chuck means 12 on the drum 7. The sensor 16 comprises a photodetector and is adapted to detect light impinging thereon and emanating from a light emitting element 17 disposed inside the transfer drum 7 so as to be opposed to the sensor 16, col. 3, lines 21-30). 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 process of transferring a light-emitting element of Kim et al. by providing as sensor for sensing a light emitted from the light-emitting element as taught by Kawai et al. in order to determine whether the object is present while the object is transferring.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. as applied to claim 1 above.
Kim et al. teach all limitations as set forth above, but silent an edge- emitting laser diode as the light-emitting element. Since the scope of he claimed invention is a process of transferring a light-emitting element, It is however generally known to the person skilled in the art that the light-emitting element of Kim et al. and the edge- emitting laser diode is equivalent and can be interchanged with one another where circumstances make it desirable. 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, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the light-emitting element of Kim et al. to provide the well-known benefit of transferring the component.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koike et al. (PGPub 2016/0056352 A1).
Kim et al. teach all limitations as set forth above, but silent performing an optical inspection before transferring the light-emitting element. Koike et al. teach a semiconductor light emitting devices including an optical inspection in order to evaluating a scattering component of the of the optical inspection (i.e., As described already, in the optical substrate PP 10 according to this Embodiment, it is possible to observe the pattern X made by the concavo-convex structure 20. Therefore, by performing an optical inspection after preparing the optical substrate PP 10, it is possible to beforehand grasp the accuracy of the concavo-convex structure 20 and the pattern X. In other words, without performing analysis of a high degree using an electron beam, by general optical microscope observation, it is possible to judge the accuracy of the concavo-convex structure 20, paragraphs [0272-0273]). 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 process of transferring a light-emitting element of Kim et al. by providing an optical inspection as taught by Koike et al. in order to evaluating a scattering component of the of the optical inspection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art of record fails to disclose the claimed invention such as a transferring direction of the light-emitting element is parallel to the surface of the supporting stage. Examiner traverses the argument. First, applicant pointed out that the amended claim 1 can be found in paragraph [0036]. However, there are no such things to describe the amended claim, “[36] Referring to Figure 2, the supporting stage 300 may be provided in the testing system 20. The supporting stage 300 may carry the object to be tested, such as the light-emitting element 10. According to some embodiments of the present disclosure, the supporting stage 300 may be a chuck with one or more vacuum holes (shown in Figure 3) that provide vacuum suction to the light-emitting element 10. If necessary, the supporting stage 300 may be heated or cooled to provide temperature control to the light-emitting element 10. In other embodiments, the supporting stage 300 may be an electrostatic chuck that provides electrostatic charges to attach the light-emitting element 10”.
Second, both Kim as shown in Figs. 2B and 2C and Tada as shown in Fig. 2 show that the element is transferred parallel to the surface of the supporting stage. However, applicant argues that the light-emitting element chips 11 of Kim being transported do not remain on the surface of the first substrate 50. There is no such a limitation in the claim. The element of both Kim and Tada is transferred parallel to the surface of the supporting stage. Therefore, the prior arts of record teach all limitation as set forth above and examiner maintains his rejection.
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 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, Thomas Hong can be reached on 571-272-0993. 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
Prosecution Insights