DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendment filed April 20, 2026. The amendment has been entered.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. The IDS has been considered.
Drawings
The prior drawing objections are withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
Claim Objections
The prior claim objections are withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The prior §112 rejections are withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 170-184 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 170 recites “…one or more transfer chucks used to pick at least four of said plurality of dies from said source substrate in parallel…”. This limitation is indefinite as this has multiple interpretations. Applicant’s intent is unclear since picking in parallel may mean the dies are arranged parallel to one another when picked, or this could mean the picking/movement of the apparatus transfer chucks are moved in parallel directions, or this could mean simultaneously. The metes and bounds are not clear and one would not know when infringement occurs.
Claim 178 recites “…said relative positions of said at least four of said plurality of dies is arbitrary.” This limitation appears to contradict the recited “…relative positions of said at least four of said plurality of dies is predetermined” in claim 1. Either the dies have predetermined positions or the positions are arbitrary. It is not clear how these can be both, simultaneously. Further still, it is not clear what Applicant regards as dies having arbitrary relative positions or how to determine when die positions become arbitrary. Whether or not dies are in arbitrary relative positions is a subjective determination, further rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 182 recites “said one or more transfer chucks change their relative position along an X axis or a Y axis.” This limitation is unclear since a relative position is with respect to another object or reference point. The object the transfer chuck is changing its relative position with respect to is confusing and could be another chuck, another die, the X axis or Y axis, etc. If this is with respect to another chuck, then the claim cannot recite the “one” option of the one or more since one chuck cannot change a relative position with respect to a non-existent chuck.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claims 170-184 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sreenivasan et al. (WO 2019/126769, of record).
Applicant is reminded of MPEP §2114 and §2115. The claims of the instant application are drawn to an apparatus. “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Also see MPEP §2115: “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
(Re Claim 170) Sreenivasan teaches a system for assembling dies from a source substrate onto a second substrate, the system comprising; said source substrate (100) comprising a plurality of dies (103, 1101); and one or more transfer chucks (1103) used to pick at least four of said plurality of dies from said source substrate in parallel to be transferred to said second substrate (1102), wherein relative positions of said at least four of said plurality of dies is predetermined (see Figs. 1, 11A-12B and ¶¶35-38,78).
(Re Claims 171-175) wherein an overlay precision of each of said at least four of said plurality of dies with respect to said second substrate is sub-1 µm, sub-200 nm, sub-100 nm, sub-50 nm, sub-10 nm (see ¶36 and claim 2, as best understood, these limitations are drawn to a manner in which the apparatus is used/operated and/or a result from using the apparatus, see above).
(Re Claim 176) wherein each of said plurality of dies is at least 0.5 mm on a side (¶46, this limitation is drawn to the work piece/article worked upon/contents of the apparatus, see above).
(Re Claim 177) wherein each of said plurality of dies is at least 200 mm on a side (¶46: 10s of mm includes 200 mm, this limitation is drawn to the work piece/article worked upon/contents of the apparatus, see above).
(Re Claim 178) wherein said relative positions of said at least four of said plurality of dies is arbitrary (this limitation is drawn to the work piece/article worked upon/contents of the apparatus).
(Re Claim 179) wherein said at least four of said plurality of dies are assembled onto said second substrate in a face-to-face manner (¶48, this limitation is drawn to the work piece/article worked upon/contents of the apparatus).
(Re Claim 180) wherein said at least four of said plurality of dies are assembled onto said second substrate in a face-to-back manner (¶48, this limitation is drawn to the work piece/article worked upon/contents of the apparatus).
(Re Claim 181) wherein said transfer chuck is reconfigurable (the chuck 1103 is reconfigurable since the vacuum ¶86 used to pick up a die can also be turned off to release the die, i.e. reconfigurable between vacuum-on and vacuum-off states, alternatively, it appears the different holes 1405/1401 for vacuum/pressure).
(Re Claim 182) wherein said one or more transfer chucks change their relative position along an X axis or a Y axis (based on the disclosure in ¶¶5,40, 42, 49, it is clear the transfer chuck is capable of moving in x-y directions, thereby changing a position with respect to an arbitrary x or y axis).
(Re Claim 183) wherein said one or more transfer chucks independently change their position along an X axis or a Y axis (based on the disclosure in ¶¶5,40, 42, 49, it is clear the transfer chuck is capable of moving in x-y directions, thereby changing a position with respect to an arbitrary x or y axis).
(Re Claim 184) wherein said one or more transfer chucks have predetermined regions that create vacuum suction (¶86).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 ERIK T. K. PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 pm (CST).
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
/ERIK T. K. PETERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights