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 4/7/2026.
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, 4, 5, 7, 11, 13, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US PAT. 11,417,795) in view of Bucker (USPAT. 4,387,116), and further in view of Cheung et al. (US PAT. 10,186,549) and Yoshida (JP 07058440 A).
Yang teaches a process of die bonding for a micro-LED, comprising steps of: plating a tin (14, Fig. 2) at a die bonding position of a printed circuit board (PCB, 11) to obtain a tin-plated layer (col. 4, lines 27-28); adding a flux on the tin-plated layer (col. 4, lines 35-37) and a protective layer (16, col. 4, lines 39-40) on the tin-plated layer in sequence to obtain a pretreated PCB; and transferring a flip-chip micro-LED (17) to the pretreated PCB, reflowing and die bonding to complete die bonding of the micro-LED (col. 5, lines 25-27).
However, Yang teaches to form the protective layer after the flux is formed, not prior to. Even though Yang teaches to form the protective layer after the flux is formed, 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 processes as recited in the claimed invention because the protective layer and the flux layer would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well to enhance the bonding property between the PCB and the LED chip. Also, Applicant has not disclosed that the forming process of the protective layer and the flux layer in sequence to obtain a pretreated PCB as recited in the claimed invention provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the forming processes of the protective layer and the flux layer of Yang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Alternately, Bucker teaches a process to form a protective layer (18, col. 2, lines 58-65) on a tin layer (12, col. 2, lines 9-10, Fig. 1) follow by applying a flux layer to form a layer (20, Fig. 3, col. 3, lines 7-15). 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 fabricating the protective layer and the flux layer of Yang by forming the protective layer and the flux layer in sequence as taught by Bucker in order to provide enhancing the bonding property between the PCB and the LED chip.
Further, Yang, modified by Bucker, silent a flip-chip micro-LED with tin. Cheung et al. teach a process of fabricating an electrical device including a process of providing a flip-chip micro-LED (36, 38, 40, Fig. 5) with tin (46, solder flux) in order to provide for enhancing a thermal bonding between the flip-chip micro-LED and a PCB (10, Fig. 6E). 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 the flip-chip micro-LED of Yang, modified by Bucker, by providing a flip-chip micro-LED with tin as taught by Cheung et al. in order to provide for enhancing a thermal bonding between the flip-chip micro-LED and the PCB.
In addition, Yang, modified by Bucker and Cheung et al., fails to teach to form the tin by an electroless tin plating. Yoshida teaches a process of making a printed circuit board including an electroless plate process such that “Within the manufacturing method of a circuit board comprising an insulating substrate whereon a specific circuit pattern is formed, a specific position of the insulating substrate 1 immersed in an electroless plating solution 3 is irradiated with laser beams 5 so that a specific pattern comprising the metal-plate film formed of the electroless plating solution 3 may be beam- exposed and formed on the insulating substrate 1” as shown in Fig. 1 (see abstract). 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 the tin plating process of Yang, modified by Bucker and Cheung et al., by forming a metal plating layer by an electroless plating process as taught by Yoshida in order to form an electroless plating on a specific site on a circuit board .
Re. claims 2, 5, 13 and 15: Yang, modified by Bucker and Cheung et al. and Yoshida, silent a thickness of the tin-plated layer and the flux layer. 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, 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 obtaining a desirable electrical device.
Re. claims 4 and 11: : Yang, modified by Bucker and Cheung et al. and Yoshida, silent a material of the flux. Since the flux material is provided for enhancing the bonding property between the micro-LED and the PCB, one of ordinary skill in the art could easily select materials from the recited lists to result in the required bonding property. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the flux material of Yang, modified by Bucker and Cheung et al. and Yoshida, to obtain the invention as specified in claims 4 and 11.
Re. claim 7 and 20: Bucker teaches that “layer thickness is controlled by regulating the amount of liquid applied to the surface and the spinning speed which controls the centrifugal liquid spreading force” (col. 2, lines 22-25) and Yang teaches that “…a die-bonding position of the wafer does not change significantly and the reflow process for the solder is completed in the case” (col. 5, lines 25-37). Since the reflowing process has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in Yang, modified by Bucker and Cheung et al. and Yoshida, adjusting a reflow profile before the reflowing and the die bonding is within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the well-known benefit of controlling the reflow process during the die bonding process.
Claims 3, 9, 10, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Bucker and Cheung et al. and Yoshida, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishida et al. (PGPub 2018/0158794 A1).
Yang, modified by Bucker and Cheung et al. and Yoshida, teaches all limitations as set forth above, but silent an organic solderability preservative (OSP) process to form the protective layer. Ishida et al. teach a process of fabricating an electrical device including a process of forming a protecting layer (an organic corrosion inhibitor) to protect a layer (paragraph [0042]). 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 fabricating the protective layer of Yang, modified by Bucker and Cheung et al. and Yoshida, by providing an organic solderability preservative (OSP) process as taught by Ishida et al. in order to provide a protection from the corrosion to a desired layer.
Re. claim 12: Yang, modified by Bucker and Cheung et al. and Yoshida, silent a material of the flux. Since the flux material is provided for enhancing the bonding property between the micro-LED and the PCB, one of ordinary skill in the art could easily select materials from the recited lists to result in the required bonding property. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the flux material of Yang, modified by Bucker and Cheung et al. and Yoshida, to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Re. claim 14: Yang, modified by Bucker and Cheung et al. and Yoshida, silent a thickness of the tin-plated layer and the flux layer. 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, 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 obtaining a desirable electrical device.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Bucker and Cheung et al. and Yoshida, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Ishibashi (PGPub 2015/0040419 A1).
Yang, modified by Bucker and Cheung et al. and Yoshida, teaches all limitations including a thickness of tin-plated layer and the flux layer as set forth above (see also claims 2 and 5), but silent a nitrogen to correct a negative pressure. Ishibashi teaches an apparatus including “a gas ejector (26, Fig. 13) can easily adjust a negative pressure by regulating the flow rate of the gas (for example, nitrogen gas or dry air) flowing into the gas ejector 26, a fine adjustment of the negative pressure can be performed” (paragraph [0081]). 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 the die bonding process of Yang, modified by Bucker and Cheung et al. and Yoshida, by adjusting a negative pressure by a nitrogen gas as taught by Ishibashi in order to provide a fine adjustment of the negative pressure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5, 7-15 and 20 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, 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