DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 7/10/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-11 and 13 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 and the § 112(b) rejection as set forth in the office action of 5/28/2025; therefore, the claim objections and § 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7, filed 7/10/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant argues that ITO and KOBAYASHI fail to teach the newly amended limitation of the flattening units arranged on the circumference of the carrier surface. The Examiner agrees that ITO and KOBAYAHSI do not teach the newly amended limitation recited in amended claim 1. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yuki et al. (U.S. 8,863,808), hereinafter YUKI.
The Applicant argues that TANAKA fails to disclose a lift plate disposed at the circumference of the substrate and its utilization for preventing substrate warping and TANAKA discloses that the lift plate is used to support the substate holder (130) and not the substrate.
In regards to TANAKA, the Examiner agrees that the lift plate is used to support the substrate holder and not the substrate holder; however, TANAKA is used for the capability of flattening units swinging in a direction parallel to the carrier [0127]. Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., utilization for preventing substrate warping) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the 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 for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, 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:
(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.
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: pressing unit in claims 1, 14, 16 19; flattening units in claims 1, 6-11, 20; air extraction device in claim 3; alignment units in claims 4-5; distance measuring unit in claim 12-13; heating unit in claims 18-19.
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.
If 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) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claims 1, 14, 16 and 19 have the limitation “pressing unit”. The Examiner interprets this under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because (A) the claim uses the place holder term “unit” and (B) the terms “unit” is modified by the functional language “pressing” and (C) the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the function of pressing. The Examiner interprets “pressing unit” as a plate [Fig. 3; numeral 13] and equivalents thereof.
Claims 1, 6-11, and 20 have the limitation “flattening unit”. The Examiner interprets this under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because (A) the claim uses the place holder term “unit” and (B) the terms “unit” is modified by the functional language “flattening” and (C) the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the function of flattening. The Examiner interprets “flattening unit” as a protrusion [Fig. 4; numeral 173] and equivalents thereof.
Claim 3 have the limitation “air extraction device”. The Examiner interprets this under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because (A) the claim uses the place holder term “device” and (B) the terms “device” is modified by the functional language “air extraction” and (C) the term “device” is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the function of air extraction. The Examiner interprets “air extraction device” as a motor [Applicant’s specification; 0051] and equivalents thereof.
Claims 4-5 have the limitation “aligning unit”. The Examiner interprets this under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because (A) the claim uses the place holder term “unit” and (B) the terms “unit” is modified by the functional language “aligning” and (C) the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the function of aligning. The Examiner interprets “aligning unit” as a protrusion [Fig. 5; numeral 14] and equivalents thereof.
Claims 12-13 have the limitation “distance measuring unit”. The Examiner interprets this under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because (A) the claim uses the place holder term “unit” and (B) the terms “unit” is modified by the functional language “distance measuring” and (C) the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the function of distance measuring. The Examiner interprets “distance measuring unit” as a laser rangefinder [Applicant’s specification; 0044] and equivalents thereof.
Claims 18-19 have the limitation “heating unit”. The Examiner interprets this under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because (A) the claim uses the place holder term “unit” and (B) the terms “unit” is modified by the functional language “heating” and (C) the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the function of heating. The Examiner interprets “heating unit” as a plate [Fig. 3; numeral 152] and equivalents thereof.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9-11 and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (U.S. PGPUB 2005/0089597), hereinafter ITO, in view of Yuki et al. (U.S. 8,863,808), hereinafter YUKI, and TANAKA et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2013/0048222), hereinafter TANAKA.
Regarding claim 1, ITO teaches: A bonding machine for warped substrates (ITO teaches a bonding machine for substrates [0002]), comprising: a first chamber (ITO teaches a first chamber (14) [Fig. 1; 0085]); a second chamber facing the first chamber (ITO teaches a second chamber (13) facing the first chamber (14) [Fig. 1; 0084-0085]), wherein the first chamber is configured to be connected the second chamber to define an enclosed space between the first chamber and the second chamber (ITO teaches the first chamber (14) is configured to connect to the second chamber (13) to define an enclosed space (25) between the first chamber (14) and the second chamber (13) [Fig. 1; 0085-0086]); a pressing unit connected to the first chamber and located within the enclosed space (ITO teaches a pressing unit (9) connected to the first chamber (14) and located within the enclosed space (25) [Fig. 1; 0085]); a carrier connected to the second chamber (ITO teaches a carrier (10) connected to the second chamber (13) [Fig. 1; 0084]), and located within the enclosed space (ITO teaches the carrier (10) is within the enclosed space (25) [Fig. 1; 0084]), wherein the carrier includes a carrier surface facing the pressing unit (ITO teaches the carrier (10) has an upper face facing the pressing unit (9) [Fig. 1; 0083]), wherein the carrier surface includes a placement area is configured to carry a first substrate, and a second substrate is placed on the first substrate (ITO teaches several films (23) are placed on the carrier (10) surface, which the Examiner is interpreting the films as a first and second substrate [0029; 0107; 0119; Fig. 1]); and a plurality of flattening devices (ITO teaches a plurality of flattening devices (4/16) [Fig. 2; 0085; 0092; 0094-0095; 0064-0065; 0069]), including: a plurality of flattening units located around the placement area of the carrier (ITO teaches a plurality of flattening units (20) [Figs. 6-7; 0096; 106]); a plurality of telescopic rotary motors connected to the flattening units (ITO teaches the functions of both the high thrusting unit and the low thrusting unit can be performed by the driving unit, which may be a servo motor mechanism [0071]. ITO teaches the servo motor mechanism (200) comprises a servo motor portion (201), a spindle (202) and cylinder (203) [0140]), and driving the flattening units to . . . , move up and down relative to the carrier surface of the carrier, so that the flattening units are configured to flatten the first substrate on the placement area (ITO teaches the lower pushup cylinder mechanism (16) is driven to push the rod (16-3) into or out of the cylinder (16-1) via the cylinder piston (16-2), so that the pushup plate (19) is vertically slidably moved to ascend or descend the pushup rods, thereby vertically slide the sliding frame body (15) along the lower fixed frame via the connecting rod (20) [0106; Fig. 6; 0064-0065]. ITO teaches the flattening devices (press plate driving units (4/16)) are used to press the workpiece and it would inherently flatten the workpiece [0064-0065; 0069]).
ITO is silent as to a plurality of telescopic rotary motors connected to the flattening units (20). ITO teaches the cylinder mechanism (104) is replaced by a servo motor mechanism (200) [0140]. 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 ITO, by substituting the cylinder mechanism (16) with a servo motor mechanism, as it’s a known option in the art. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.").
ITO does not explicitly teach: wherein the plurality of flattening units are arranged on a circumference of the carrier surface and a plurality of telescopic rotary motors connected to the flattening units, and driving the flattening units to swing in the direction parallel to the carrier surface, and to move up and down relative to the carrier surface of the carrier, so that the flattening units are configured to flatten the first substrate on the placement area.
In the same field of endeavor, bonding devices, YUKI teaches a plurality of flattening units (631) are arranged on a circumference of the carrier surface (190) [Col. 14, lines 2-3; Col. 14, lines 47-56; Figs. 5-6]. YUKI teaches the hand portion (631) includes an adhering section (632) and a claw portion (633) [Col. 14, lines 50-51]. YUKI teaches the hand opening/closing (634) opens and closes the hand portion (631), using an actuator [Col. 14, lines 57-58]. YUKI teaches the plurality of flattening units can be moved up or down relative to the carrier surface of the carrier (190) [Figs. 7-9], so that the flattening units (633) are configured to hold the substrate (120) on the placement area [Figs. 7-9; Col. 14, lines 53-56], and would inherently flatten he substrate edges. 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 ITO, by substituting the flattening devices in ITO with the flattening devices in YUKI, in order to grasp the substrate [Col. 14, lines 39-41].
ITO and YUKI teach all of the limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: driving the flattening units to swing in the direction parallel to the carrier surface. In the same field of endeavor, TANAKA teaches units (230) that drive to swing in a direction parallel to the carrier surface [Fig. 12; 0123]. 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 ITO and KOBAYASHI, by having the flattening units be capable of swinging in a direction parallel to the carrier, as suggested by TANAKA, in order to not obstruct carrying in and out the substrate [0127].
Regarding claim 9, YUKI further teaches: wherein the telescopic rotary motor is configured to drive the flattening unit to swing between a first position and a second position (YUKI teaches the flattening units (633) are moved between a first and second position [Figs. 7-9].), the flattening unit operating at the first position is located outside the placement area (YUKI shows the flattening units (633) are outside the placement area [Fig. 5].), and the flattening unit operating at the second position is located above the placement area (YUKI teaches the flattening units are located above the placement area [Fig. 7].).
Regarding claim 10, YUKI further teaches: wherein the telescopic rotary motor is configured to drive the flattening unit to move between a first height and a second height, and the first height is higher than the second height (YUKI shows the flattening units (633) are driven between a first height (Figs. 7, 11) and a second height (Fig. 12), with the first height being higher than the second height.).
Regarding claim 11, YUKI further teaches: wherein a gap is formed between the flattening unit operating at the first height and the carrier surface of the carrier (YUKI teaches a gap is formed between the flattening unit (633) operating at the first height and the carrier surface [Figs. 7-8].), and the gap is larger than a thickness of the first substrate plus a warpage of the first substrate (YUKI shows the gap is larger than a thickness of the first substrate [Figs. 7-12].), wherein the flattening unit operating at the second height contacts and flattens the first substrate placed on the carrier surface (YUKI teaches the flattening units (633) at the second height contacts the substrate on the carrier [Col. 16, lines 20-26].).
Regarding claim 14, ITO teaches: wherein the pressing unit includes a pressing plate (ITO teaches a pressing plate (9) [Fig. 2; 0051; 0082]), a connecting plate (fitting plate (5) [Fig. 2; 0082]) and a plurality of fixing rods (supporting rods (6) [Fig. 2; 0082]), the connecting plate is connected to the pressing plate through the fixing rods (ITO teaches the connecting plate (5) is connected to the pressing plate (9) through the fixing rods (6) [Fig. 2; 0082]), and the pressing plate faces the carrier surface of the carrier (ITO teaches the pressing plate (9) faces the carrier surface of the carrier (10) [Fig. 2; 0083]).
Regarding claim 15, ITO teaches: further comprising a chamber driver located outside the enclosed space (ITO teaches a chamber driver (4-1) located outside the enclosed space (25) [Fig. 2; 0085]), and connecting to and driving the first chamber to move relative to the second chamber (ITO teaches the chamber driver connecting to and driving the first chamber (14) to move relative to the second chamber (13) [Fig. 2; 0085]).
Regarding claim 16, ITO teaches: further comprising a pressing unit driver located outside the enclosed space (ITO teaches a piston (4-2/ 104-2) outside the enclosed space [Fig. 2; 0082; 0113]), and connecting to and driving the pressing unit to move toward or move away from the carrier (ITO teaches the pressing unit (9) is moved toward and away from the carrier [0122]).
Regarding claim 17, ITO teaches: further comprising an air extraction motor fluidly connected to the enclosed space (ITO teaches an air suction hole (22) is connected to a vacuum pump, such as an oil pump, and the air suction hole (22) is connected to the enclosed space (25) [0087]).
Regarding claim 18, ITO teaches: further comprising a first heating unit arranged in the carrier (ITO teaches a heating unit (11) in the carrier (10) [Fig. 2; 0090]).
Regarding claim 19, ITO teaches: further comprising a second heating unit arranged in the pressing unit (ITO teaches a heating unit (8) in the pressing plate (9) [0052; 0090; Fig. 2]).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (U.S. PGPUB 2005/0089597), hereinafter ITO, Yuki et al. (U.S. 8,863,808), hereinafter YUKI, and TANAKA et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2013/0048222), hereinafter TANAKA, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ogimoto (U.S. PGPUB 2002/0157246), hereinafter OGIMOTO.
Regarding claim 2, ITO, YUKI and TANAKA teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: further comprising a plurality of exhaust lines disposed in the carrier and connected to the placement area of the carrier, wherein the exhaust lines are configured to form a negative pressure to suck the first substrate on the placement area. In the same field of endeavor, substrate machines, OGIMOTO teaches a plurality of exhaust lines (13) are disposed in the carrier and connected to the placement area of the carrier [Fig. 1; 0033]. OGIMOTO teaches the exhaust lines (13) are configured to a vacuum source [0035]. 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 ITO, YUKI and TANAKA, by having exhaust lines in the carrier connected to a vacuum source, as suggested by OGIMOTO, in order to hold the substrate by suction from below [0011].
Regarding claim 3, OGIMOTO further teaches: further comprising an air extraction device and a plurality of valves, wherein the air extraction device is connected to the exhaust lines to form the negative pressure on the exhaust lines connected to the placement area (OGIMOTO teaches a vacuum source (38) is connected to the exhaust lines (13) and a plurality of valves are used [0035]), and the valves are respectively connected to the exhaust lines (OGIMOTO shows the valves (40) are connected to the exhaust lines (13) [Fig. 1]), and configured to switch whether the exhaust lines generate the negative pressure (OGIMOTO teaches the valves can be controlled based on the measured data [0035] and the suction can be adjusted [0040]). 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 ITO, YUKI and TANAKA, by having exhaust lines connected to a plurality of valves connected to a vacuum source, as suggested by OGIMOTO, in order to hold the substrate by suction from below [0011].
Regarding claim 6, ITO and YUKI teach all of the claimed limitations, as stated above, including: wherein the flattening units are configured to flatten a side edge of the first substrate (YUKI teaches the flattening units (631) are used to hold the outer edges of the substrate on the carrier (4) [Figs. 7-11]), but are silent as to: the negative pressure generated by the exhaust lines are configured to suck an inner side of the first substrate. In the same field of endeavor, substrate machines, OGIMOTO teaches a plurality of exhaust lines (13) are disposed in the carrier and connected to the placement area of the carrier [Fig. 1; 0033]. OGIMOTO teaches the exhaust lines (13) are configured to a vacuum source to suck the inner side of the substrate [0035; Fig. 1]. 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 ITO, YUKI and TANAKA, by having exhaust lines suck the inner side of the substrate, as suggested by OGIMOTO, in order to hold the substrate by suction from below [0011].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (U.S. PGPUB 2005/0089597), hereinafter ITO, Yuki et al. (U.S. 8,863,808), hereinafter YUKI, TANAKA et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2013/0048222), hereinafter TANAKA, and Ogimoto (U.S. PGPUB 2002/0157246), hereinafter OGIMOTO, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of BROEKAART et al. (WO 2012/113799 A1), hereinafter BROEKAART.
Regarding claim 4, ITO, YUKI, TANAKA and OGIMOTO teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: further comprising a plurality of alignment units arranged on the carrier surface of the carrier and surrounding the placement area of the carrier, wherein the alignment units are configured to align the first substrate and the second substrate, and during the process of alignment of the first substrate or the second substrate by the alignment unit, the exhaust line will not suck the first substrate. In the same field of endeavor, bonding machines, BROEKAART teaches a plurality of alignment units (230, 240) arranged on the carrier surface (210) and surrounding the placement area (211) of the carrier [Fig. 3; pg. 16; claim 1]. BROEKAART teaches the alignment units are configured to align two wafers [pg. 16; claim 12] and the alignment is done without vacuum [claim 12]. 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 ITO, YUKI, TANAKA and OGIMOTO, by having a plurality of aligning units on the carrier configured to align the wafers, as suggested by BROEKAART, in order to ensure the alignment of the wafers [pg. 17].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (U.S. PGPUB 2005/0089597), hereinafter ITO, Yuki et al. (U.S. 8,863,808), hereinafter YUKI, TANAKA et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2013/0048222), hereinafter TANAKA, Ogimoto (U.S. PGPUB 2002/0157246), hereinafter OGIMOTO, and BROEKAART et al. (WO 2012/113799 A1), hereinafter BROEKAART, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Lim et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2004/0095548), hereinafter LIM.
Regarding claim 5, ITO, YUKI, TANAKA, OGIMOTO and LIM teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the alignment unit is connected to a linear actuator, and is driven by the linear actuator to moves up and down relative to the carrier surface of the carrier. In the same field of endeavor, substrates, LIM teaches alignment means are a plurality of linear actuators (510). 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 the alignment units of BROEKAART, by substituting the alignment means with linear actuators, as it’s a known option in the art. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.").
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (U.S. PGPUB 2005/0089597), hereinafter ITO, Yuki et al. (U.S. 8,863,808), hereinafter YUKI, and TANAKA et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2013/0048222), hereinafter TANAKA, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yu et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0020492), hereinafter YU.
Regarding claim 7, ITO, YUKI and TANAKA teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: further comprising a plurality of rods passing through the carrier and the second chamber, wherein the telescopic rotary motors are located outside the enclosed space, and respectively connected to the flattening units through the rods to drive the flattening units to swing, move up and down relative to the carrier surface of the carrier. In the same field of endeavor, substrates, YU teaches rods (72) passing through the carrier (50) and the motors (82) are located outside the enclosed space and are connected to the flattening units (60) up and down relative to the carrier surface of the carrier (50) [Fig. 6C-6D; 0035-36]. 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 ITO, YUKI and TANAKA, by having rods connected to the flattening units through the carrier, as suggested by YU, in order to secure the substrate [0036].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (U.S. PGPUB 2005/0089597), hereinafter ITO, Yuki et al. (U.S. 8,863,808), hereinafter YUKI, and TANAKA et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2013/0048222), hereinafter TANAKA, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Minato et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2013/0330848), hereinafter MINATO.
Regarding claim 8, ITO, YUKI and TANAKA teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the telescopic rotary motor includes a linear actuator and a rotation motor, and the linear actuator is connected to the flattening unit via the rotation motor. In the same field of endeavor, substrates, MINATO teaches a raising and lowering mechanism (76) that includes two shafts and the raising and lowering mechanism may be configured to use a linear actuator [0058; Fig. 4(b)]. MINATO teaches the four holding members (77) are rotatably fitted to hold the edge portions of the wafer W [0057] and are connected to the linear actuator (76) [Fig 4(b)]. 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 ITO, YUKI and TANAKA, by having flattening units with a linear actuator and rotation motor, as suggested by MINATO, in order to rotate the wafer and hold the edge portions of the wafer [0059].
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (U.S. PGPUB 2005/0089597), hereinafter ITO, Yuki et al. (U.S. 8,863,808), hereinafter YUKI, and TANAKA et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2013/0048222), hereinafter TANAKA, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0057263), hereinafter KIM.
Regarding claim 12, ITO, YUKI and TANAKA teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: further comprising a plurality of distance measuring units arranged on the pressing unit for measuring distances between each distance measuring unit and the first substrate. In the same field of endeavor, bonding machines, KIM teaches a plurality of displacement sensors (140) to sense vertical-direction distances between different portions of the first deformable plate (120) and the first base (110) [0031-0032]. 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 ITO, YUKI and TANAKA, by having displacement sensors to measure the distances, as suggested by KIM, in order to calculate the deformations on the deformed plate [0007].
Regarding claim 13, KIM further teaches: wherein the distance measuring unit is a laser rangefinder (KIM teaches the distance sensor teaches a laser type of sensor [0032; 0076]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (U.S. PGPUB 2005/0089597), hereinafter ITO, Yuki et al. (U.S. 8,863,808), hereinafter YUKI, and TANAKA et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2013/0048222), hereinafter TANAKA, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mitsuishi et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2020/0286851), hereinafter MITSUISHI.
Regarding claim 20, ITO, YUKI and TANAKA teach all of the claimed limitations, as stated above, but are silent as to: further comprising a plurality of rods passing through the second chamber and arranged around the carrier, wherein the telescopic rotary motors are located outside the enclosed space, and respectively connected to the flattening units through the rods to drive the flattening units to swing, move up and down relative to the carrier surface of the carrier. In the same field of endeavor, substrates, MITSUISHI teaches a plurality of rods that pass through the second chamber (611) and arranged around the carrier (613) and connected to the flattening units [Fig. 21; 0190]. 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 ITO, YUKI and TANAKA, by having the rods in the second chamber and arranged around the carrier, as suggested by MITSUISHI, in order to raise or lower the substrate [0191].
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 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 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 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