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. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. FILLIN "Insert series code and serial no. of parent." KR10-2022-0018412 and KR10-2022-0031882 , filed on FILLIN "Enter the date filing of the parent application." 2/11/2022 and 3/15/2022, respectively . Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. In paragraph 0061, line 1, reference number 1211 is mentioned. However, this reference number is not included in Figure 10. Therefore, the feature 1211 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT In paragraph 007, line 1, " a operation" should read "an operation ". In paragraph 007, line 2, " a operation" should read "an operation" . Appropriate correction is required. 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) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1, 2, 7, 8, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" (a)(1) as being FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" anticipated by FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 4 ]" Reissmueller (U.S. Patent No. 3357091) . Regarding claim 1, Reissmueller teaches an aligning device (Column 1, lines 11-21) comprising: A body part comprising a body (34) and a mask plate (20), the body (34) being configured to receive a movement by a first moving part ( 56 ) and the body (34) comprising a body hole, and the mask plate (20) being configured to receive a movement by a second moving part ( 26 ) and the mask plate (20) comprising a mask plate hole ( Column 3, lines 51-55, 61-65; Fig. 1, elements 20, 26, 34, 36, 56 ); and A head part (36) disposed on the body part and configured to receive a movement by a third moving part ( 50 ) ( Column 3, lines 68-73; Column 4, lines 36-41; Fig. 1, elements 36, 50 ), Wherein the mask plate (20) is disposed between the body (34) and the head part (36) and is configured to receive the movement by the second moving part ( 26 ), to move between the body (34) and the head part (36) ( Column 3, lines 51-55 , Fig. 2, elements 20, 24, 36). Regarding claim 2, Reissmueller teaches the first moving part ( 56 ), the second moving part ( 26 ), and the third moving part ( 50 ) are configured to move independently ( column 3, lines 51-55, 61-65; Column 4, lines 36-41 ). Regarding claim 7, Reissmueller teaches the head part (36) comprises a suction surface, a suction line (84, 86, 88), and a suction curve and the head part (36) is configured to form a vacuum pressure at the suction line (84, 86, 88) and the suction curve ( Column 2, lines 62-67; Column 5, lines 1-6; Fig. 1, elements 84, 86, 88). Additional details are provided in the figure below. Regarding claim 8, Reissmueller teaches a raw material part that is sucked to the head part (36) (Column 3, lines 68-73). Regarding claim 13, Reissmueller teaches an aligning device (Column 1, lines 11-21) comprising: A body part comprising a body (34) and a mask plate (20), the body (34) being configured to receive a movement by a first moving part ( 56 ) and the body comprising a body hole and the mask p late (20) being configured to receive a movement by a second moving part ( 26 ) and the mask plate (20) comprising a mask plate hole ( Column 3, lines 51-55, 61-65; Fig. 1, elements 20, 26, 34, 36, 56 ); and A head part (36) disposed on the body part and configured to receive a movement by a third moving part ( 50 ) ( Column 3, lines 68-73; Column 4, lines 36-41; Fig. 1, elements 36, 50 ), Wherein the mask plate (20) is disposed between the body (34) and the body support part, and the body support part is supported by a metal support part ( 106 ) ( Column 5, lines 38-41; Fig. 6, element 106 ), and Wherein the aligning device comprises a body chamber surrounded by the body (34), the body support part and the metal support part ( 106 ) ( Fig. 6, elements 34, 106 ). Additional details are provided in the figure below. Regarding claim 14, Reissmueller teaches the first moving part ( 56 ), the second moving part ( 26 ), and the third moving part ( 50 ) are configured to move independently ( Column 3, lines 51-55, 61-65; Column 4, lines 36-41 ). Claim(s) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1 8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" (a)(1) as being FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" anticipated by FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 4 ]" Fournel et al (EP 3929970) . Regarding claim 18, Fournel et al teaches an aligning method comprising: Sucking a plurality of raw materials (2) using a head part (110) ( Page 11, paragraph 10; Page 12, paragraph 1-2 ; Fig. 16, elements 2, 110); Separating the raw material (2) from the head part (110) and disposing the raw material (2) in a mask plate hole formed in a mask plate (4) ( Page 12, paragraph 11 ); Aligning the plurality of raw materials (2) by moving the mask plate (4) ( Page 12, paragraph 8 ); and Moving the mask plate (4) to align the plurality of raw materials (2) so that the plurality of raw materials (2) have a constant interval therebetween ( Page 12, paragraph 8 ). Regarding claim 19, Fournel et al teaches that separating the raw material (2) from the head part (110) comprises sucking the raw material (2) using a vacuum pressure in a body hole formed in a body ( Page 12, paragraph 11 ). 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) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 3 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Reissmueller in view of Jeon ( US 20210387450 ) . Regarding claim 3, Reissmueller fails to teach moving parts that rotate. Jeon teaches an aligning device with a first moving part (151), a second moving part (152) and a third moving part (153) that are configured to rotate independently ( Paragraph 0066, lines 4-7; Paragraph 0067, lines 2-4 ; Fig. 1, elements 151, 152, 153). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teaching of Jeon to facilitate the creation of independently rotating parts that can accurately align and mov e themselves as ta ught by Jeon (Paragraph 0006 ) . Regarding claim 15, Reissmueller fails to teach moving parts that rotate. Jeon teaches an aligning device with a first moving part (151), a second moving part (152) and a third moving part (153) that are configured to rotate independently ( Paragraph 0066, lines 4-7; Paragraph 0067, lines 2-4 ; Fig. 1, elements 151, 152, 153). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teaching of Jeon to facilitate the creation of independently rotating parts that can accurately align and move themselves as taught by Jeon ( Paragraph 0006 ). Claim (s) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 5 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Reissmueller in view of Yang et al (CN 112053985) . Regarding claim 5, Reissmueller does not teach a rectangular hole in the mask plate. Yang et al teaches an aligning device with a mask plate hole (28) that is formed in a rectangular shape (Fig. 2, elements 27, 28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Yang et al to facilitate the creation of a rectangular mask plate hole that could accommodate the shape of the raw material as taught by Yang et al ( Page 6, paragraph 9 ). Regarding claim 17, Reissmueller does not teach a rectangular hole in the mask plate. Yang et al teaches an aligning device with a mask plate hole (28) that is formed in a rectangular shape (Fig. 2, elements 27, 28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Yang et al to facilitate the creation of a rectangular mask plate hole that could accommodate the shape of the raw material as taught by Yang et al ( Page 6, paragraph 9 ) . Claim (s) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Reissmueller in view of Yang et al and in further view of Lin et al (US 10982314 B2) . Regarding claim 6, Reissmueller in view of Yang et al fails to teach a recess hole that corresponds to a vertex of the mask plate. Lin et al teaches a mask assembly and alignment device where at least one recess hole (305) is formed in a position corresponding to a vertex of the mask plate hole (200) (Column 5, lines 3-7; Fig. 3, elements 200, 305). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Lin et al to facilitate the creation of a mask plate with recesses that can improve the matching accuracy between the mask plate and the substrate deposited on it as taught by Lin et al (Column 5, lines 45-48). Claim (s) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Reissmueller in view of Abe ( TW 202123357 ) . Regarding claim 9, Reissmueller fails to teach a raw material film. Abe teaches an alignment device with a raw material part ( 610 ) that comprises a raw material film ( 100 ) , and adhesive ( 120 ) applied to the surface of the raw material film ( 100 ) , and a raw material ( 610 ) attached to the raw material film ( 100 ) by the adhesive ( 120 ) ( Page 7, paragraphs 4-5; Fig. 2A, elements 110, 120, 160; Fig. 2B elements 110, 120, 160 ) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Abe to facilitate the creation of a raw material film with an adhesive that can move multiple components at the same time and reduce manufacturing operations and costs as taught by Abe (Page 8, paragraph 3) . Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in over Reissmueller in view of Abe and in further view of Fournel et al (EP 3929770). Regarding claim 10, Fournel et al discloses a raw material with various sizes (Paragraph 87). This reference does not disclose raw materials with a size of 1 mm or less. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to create raw materials with a size of 1 mm or less. This is a common size range for chips used in microelectronic devices, which are manipulated in Fournel et al (Abstract; Page 1, paragraph 2). See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (holding that a prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness). In particular one of ordinary skill would have found it routine to create raw materials with a size of 1 m m or less. This is a common size for chips used in microelectronic devices, and would provide a predictable benefit when used to create devices with implemented circuits as shown in Fournel et al (Page 1, paragraphs 1, 2). Because these motivations are within ordinary skill and involve predictable optimization of known elements, the claimed limitation is a matter of routine design choice rather than a nonobvious structural departure. See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83. Claim(s) 4, 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reissmueller in view of Okabe (KR 20210011790). Regarding claim 4, Okabe discloses an alignment mechanism where a pressure is created within the vacuum chamber (Page 5, paragraph 4, 7; Fig. 1, elements 11, 14, W; Fig. 2, elements 21, 25, W). This pressure can create either a low vacuum state or a high vacuum state. The reference does not disclose a pressure of 50 KPa or more. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effect filing date to create a vacuum chamber with a pressure of 50 KPa or more. This pressure range is common for low pressure applications such as vacuum suction, which is utilized by the Okabe to transfer raw materials (Page 5, paragraph 7) . See In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (holds that an overlap in measurement between the prior art and the claims is sufficient for obviousness, particularly if there is no showing of criticality of the claimed range.) In particular one of ordinary skill would have found it routine to create a vacuum chamber with a pressure of 50 KPa or more. This is a common pressure range for vacuum suction devices and would provide a predictable benefit when applied to the alignment device in Okabe (Abstract) . Because these motivations are within ordinary skill an involve predictable optimization of known elements, the claimed limitation is a matter of routine design choice rather than a nonobvious structural departure. See In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52. Regarding claim 11, Reissmueller fails to teach a vacuum pressure formed in the body hole. Okabe et al teaches an alignment device where a vacuum pressure is formed in the body hole (21), the raw material is separated from the raw material film, and the raw material is disposed in the mask plate hole ( Page 5, paragraph 4, 7 ; Fig. 1, elements 11, 14, W; Fig. 2, elements 21, 25, W). Additional details are provided in the figures below. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Okabe et al to facilitate the creation of a substrate transfer system as taught by Okabe et al ( Page 5, paragraph 4 ). Regarding claim 16, Okabe discloses an alignment mechanism where a pressure is created within the vacuum chamber (Page 5, paragraph 4, 7; Fig. 1, elements 11, 14, W; Fig. 2, elements 21, 25, W). This pressure can create either a low vacuum state or a high vacuum state. The reference does not disclose a pressure of 50 KPa or more. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effect filing date to create a vacuum chamber with a pressure of 50 KPa or more. This pressure range is common for low pressure applications such as vacuum suction, which is utilized by Okabe to transfer raw material s (Page 5, paragraph 7) . See In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (holds that an overlap in measurement between the prior art and the claims is sufficient for obviousness, particularly if there is no showing of criticality of the claimed range.) In particular one of ordinary skill would have found it routine to create a vacuum chamber with a pressure of 50 KPa or more. This is a common pressure range for vacuum suction devices and would provide a predictable benefit when applied to the alignment device in Okabe (Abstract) . Because these motivations are within ordinary skill an involve predictable optimization of known elements, the claimed limitation is a matter of routine design choice rather than a nonobvious structural departure. See In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52. Claims 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in further view of Fournel et al (EP 3929970) . Regarding claim 20, Fournel et al discloses a raw material with a longest dimension that is less than 250 µm (Page 6, paragraph 7). This reference does not disclose raw materials with a size of 150 µm or less. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to create a raw material with a size of 150 µm or less . This is a common size range for chips used in microelectronic devices, which are manipulated in Fournel et al (Abstract; Page 1, paragraph 2). See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (holding that a prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness). In particular one of ordinary skill would have found it routine to create raw materials with a size of 150 µm or less. This is a common size for chips used in microelectronic devices, and would provide a predictable benefit when used to create devices with implemented circuits as shown in Fournel et al (Page 1, paragraphs 1, 2). Because these motivations are within ordinary skill and involve predictable optimization of known elements, the claimed limitation is a matter of routine design choice rather than a nonobvious structural departure. See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83. Claim (s) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Reissmueller in view of Okabe et al and in further view of Yang et al (CN 112053985) . Regarding claim 1 2 , Reissmueller in view of Okabe et al fails to teach a raw material in contact with a hole boundary. Yang et al teaches an alignment device with a raw material (2) in that is configured to receive a movement in contact with a mask plate hole boundary (2 7 ) of the mask plate ( 28 ) ( Page 6, paragraph 4, 6 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Yang et al to facilitate the creation of a boundary that can provide precise alignment of the plate as taught by Yang et al ( Page 6, paragraph 10 ). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SYDNEY JEANINE SIMMONS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7472 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday through Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT ROBERT HODGE can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-2097 . 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. /SYDNEY JEANINE SIMMONS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3654 /ROBERT W HODGE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654