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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Pages 9-11, filed 6/11/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 102(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been upheld.
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art fails to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., suction surface, suction line, and suction curve) are recited in the prior art. The prior art (Reissmeuller U.S. Patent No. 3357091) discloses three elements as suction tubes (84, 86, 88), and features a suction head with a surface and a curve, as shown in the accompanying figure. See claim rejection below.
In addition, the apparatus disclosed in the prior art is a suction device, which is commensurate in scope with the present invention. The terms vacuum and suction are also interchangeable, and are well known within the art. 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).
Applicant's arguments, see Pages 11-13, filed 6/11/2026, with respect to the technical purpose of claim(s) 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been upheld.
In response to applicant’s argument that the claimed invention realigns devices without flipping, and applies a downward vacuum pressure, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must be present within the claims themselves. This recitation must also result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use provided in the claim, then it meets the claim. 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, 968 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant's arguments, see Page 14, filed 6/11/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 13 under 102(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been upheld.
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art fails to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., suction surface, suction line, and suction curve) are recited in the prior art. The prior art (Reissmeuller U.S. Patent No. 3357091) discloses three elements as suction tubes (84, 86, 88), and features a suction head with a surface and a curve, as shown in the accompanying figure. See claim rejection below.
In addition, the apparatus disclosed in the prior art is a suction device, which is commensurate in scope with the present invention. The terms vacuum and suction are also interchangeable, and are well known within the art. 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).
Rejection of dependent claims 2, 8 and 14 is maintained under Reissmueller (US 33357091).
Rejection of dependent claims 3-6, 9-12, 15-17, and 20 under 35 USC 103 is maintained under ones of Reissmueller, Jeon (US 20210387450), Fournel (EP 3929970), Yang (CN 112053985), Lin (US 10982314), Abe (TW 202123357), and Okabe (KR 20210011790).
Applicant's arguments, see Page 14, filed 6/11/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 18 under 102(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hata et al (DE 60031288).
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, 2, 7, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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), and
Wherein 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
519
938
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 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 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 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), and
Wherein 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 figures below.
PNG
media_image2.png
478
865
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
408
857
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hata et al (DE 60031288).
Regarding claim 18, Hata et al teaches an aligning method comprising:
Sucking a plurality of raw materials (55) using a vacuum pressure formed at a suction line (63) and a suction curve of a head part (12) (Page 2, paragraphs 4-5; Page 3, paragraph 8; Page 4, paragraph 1; Fig. 1, element 63; Fig. 11, elements 3, 12, 20; annotated figure);
Separating the plurality of raw materials from the head part (12) and disposing the plurality of raw materials (55) in a mask plate hole formed in a mask plate (5) (Page 2, paragraph 5; Page 16, paragraph 3);
Aligning the plurality of raw materials (55) by moving the mask plate (5) (Page 2, paragraph 5; Page 25, paragraph 7; Page 26, paragraph 1); and
Moving the mask plate (5) to align the plurality of raw materials (100) so that the plurality of raw materials (100) have a constant interval therebetween (Page 2, paragraph 5; Page 25, paragraph 7; Page 26, paragraph 1).
Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image4.png
437
641
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Hata et al teaches separating the plurality of raw materials (55) from the head part (12) comprises sucking the plurality of raw materials (55) using the vacuum pressure in a body hole (66) formed in a body (20) (Page 2, paragraph 5; Page 7, paragraph 9; Page 8, paragraph 1; Page 16, paragraph 3; Fig. 1A, elements 20, 66).
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) 3 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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 move themselves as taught 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) 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).
PNG
media_image5.png
427
801
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
750
473
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 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.
Claim(s) 5 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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 (Page 3, paragraph 1). 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 (Page 3, paragraphs 1, 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 mm 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 6, paragraphs 3-5; Page 7, paragraph 1). 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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reissmueller in view of Okabe et al and in further view of Yang et al (CN 112053985).
Regarding claim 12, 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 (27) 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).
Claims 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hata et al in 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 mm (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.
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 SYDNEY JEANINE SIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)272-7472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 7:00am to 4:30pm.
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, ROBERT HODGE can be reached at 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
Prosecution Insights