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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-21 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 12/15/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that: there would not be a burdensome search if all of the claimed inventions (apparatus and method) were examined together. This argument is not found persuasive because the different groups have been shown to have distinct features, despite any overlap in some of the subject matter. Further, a proper search of the prior art requires review of thousands of prior art references while searching for numerous features of the invention. To search for the additionally noted features of the non-elected method would significantly increase the burden of time for the search to be performed. Even where there is overlap in the search, for example in the CPC listings, there is a significant difference in the areas of focus when searching for an apparatus versus searching for a method of manufacture. Further, claim 13 does not in any way have a “linked-linking relationship with claim 1” as asserted by the Applicant. Claim 13 is not at all dependent upon claim 1 and is directed to an entirely different statutory class (i.e. method/process vs apparatus/product). Accordingly, and based upon the clearly demonstrated distinctness between inventions as noted in the Restriction requirement, the Applicant’s arguments are not compelling.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 limitations use generic placeholders that are coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholders are not preceded by any structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a first non-contact die chuck for holding a first die” (claim 1; line 2); as well as “a non-planar chucking surface configured to hold the source substrate” (claim 1, lines 4-5); and “a substrate retention module that is configured to provide a force in a direction from the source substrate toward the substrate chuck, wherein the force is sufficient to deform the source substrate” (claim 1, lines 6-8).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The claim limitation(s) has/have been presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it/they meet(s) the following 3-prong analysis:
(A) The claim limitation(s) use the phrase “means for” or “step for” or a generic replacement therefore: “for” and “configured to” carry no more weight or meaning than the term “means for”. If the claim instead recited “a first non-contact die chuck means for holding a first die”; “a non-planar chucking surface means for holding the source substrate”; and “a substrate retention module means for providing a force in a direction from the source substrate toward the substrate chuck, wherein the force is sufficient to deform the source substrate”, it would carry the same weight and meaning.
(B) The “means for” or “step for” is modified by functional language: “holding a first die”; “to hold the source substrate”; and “to provide a force in a direction from the source substrate toward the substrate chuck, wherein the force is sufficient to deform the source substrate”.
(C) The phrase “means for” or “step for” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for achieving the specified function. In this instance, there is no structure which is understood to achieve holding a first die (especially not in a “non-contact” manner). There is also no structure for holding the source substrate, or providing any force upon the substrate. There are no vacuum or pressure lines, nor is there any actuation device or platform element or the like.
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.
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 1, 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ozono et al. (US 2004/0038498 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ozono discloses an apparatus (fig. 1: all), comprising: a first pick-up head (8) including a first non-contact die chuck (8a) for holding a first die (6; not part of claimed apparatus), wherein the first die is associated with a source substrate (5; not part of claimed apparatus); a substrate chuck (1) having a non-planar chucking surface (top of 22) configured to hold the source substrate (figs. 1-5B; pars. 0025-0027, 0029 and 0032); and a substrate retention module (7/21) that is configured to provide a force (vacuum suction) in a direction from the source substrate toward the substrate chuck, wherein the force is sufficient to deform the source substrate (figs. 6A-6C; pars. 0027, 0032-0033, 0041 and 0046).
Regarding claim 3, Ozono discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the non-planar chucking surface of the substrate chuck has a feature pitch (spacing between each of 22b) that is less than a smaller of a length and a width of the first die (fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 12, Ozono discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the substrate chuck includes features (either the openings, 22b, or the boundary portions, 22d) along the non-planar chucking surface, wherein the features are arranged at a feature pitch (figs. 5A-5B and 7B; pars. 0033 and 0040).
Claims 1, 4, 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeong et al. (US 2021/0060798 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jeong discloses an apparatus (fig. 1: all), comprising: a first pick-up head (300) including a first non-contact die chuck (330) for holding a first die (22; not part of claimed apparatus), wherein the first die is associated with a source substrate (20/24; not part of claimed apparatus) (figs. 1 and 4; pars. 0038-0041); a substrate chuck (110, 112, 200) having a non-planar chucking surface (fig. 7: top of 200) configured to hold the source substrate (figs. 1, 2 and 7; pars. 0041, 0044-0045 and 0061-0062); and a substrate retention module (26, 114) that is configured to provide a force (downward forces caused by the clamps, and/or vacuum pressure in 210) in a direction from the source substrate toward the substrate chuck, wherein the force is sufficient to deform the source substrate (fig. 2; pars. 0044 and 0064).
Regarding claim 4, Jeong discloses the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the non-planar chucking surface comprises a plurality of concentric rings (figs. 7-9; pars. 0062-0066).
Regarding claim 6, Jeong discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first pick-up head comprises a die retention module (312, 330 for the embodiment of claim 7) (310, 320 for the embodiment of claim 8) (figs. 3-4; pars. 0047-0049 and 0051-0053).
Regarding claim 7, Jeong discloses the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the die retention module comprises a pressure source (330) and a pressure actuator (312) (fig. 4; pars. 0051-0053).
Regarding claim 8, Jeong discloses the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the die retention module comprises a vacuum source (320) and a vacuum actuator (310) (fig. 3; pars. 0047-0049).
Regarding claim 9, Jeong discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a bonding head (520) configured to receive the first die from the first pick-up head and bond the first die to a destination substrate (fig. 1; par. 0042).
Regarding claim 10, Jeong discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a piezoelectric transducer (piezoelectric elements) that is a part of or coupled to the first pick-up head (par. 0048).
Regarding claim 11, Jeong discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first non-contact die chuck comprises a Bernoulli chuck (par. 0051).
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong, in view of Seyama (US 2019/0027388 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Jeong discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Jeong, however, does not explicitly disclose an array of pick-up heads including the first pick-up head and a second pick-up head including a second non-contact die chuck, and the first pick-up head and the second pick-up head are configured to pick up the first die and a second die that are at an original die pitch along the source substrate.
Seyama teaches that it is well known to provide a similar apparatus, comprising: first pick-up head (23, 26) including a first non-contact die chuck (23) for holding a first die (18; not part of claimed apparatus), wherein the first die is associated with a source substrate (17; not part of claimed apparatus); a substrate chuck (15) configured to hold the source substrate (figs. 1-2; pars. 0036-0039); wherein the apparatus comprises an array of pick-up heads (at least two of 23/26) including the first pick-up head (fig. 2: left one of 23/26) and a second pick-up head (fig. 2: right one of 23/26) including a second non-contact die chuck (23), and the first pick-up head and the second pick-up head are configured to pick up the first die and a second die (another of 18) that are at an original die pitch (as situated on 17 in fig. 2) along the source substrate (fig. 2; pars. 0036-0039).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Jeong to incorporate the plurality of pick-up heads in an array of Seyama. POSITA would have realized that more than one pick-up device can be easily and readily employed to achieve the desired high speed throughput and precision picking and placing of a plurality of dies simultaneously in a well-known manner that predictably decreases manufacturing time and thus costs. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special array of pick-up heads was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old apparatus of Jeong with the well-known plural pick-up heads of Seyama. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozono, in view of Segawa et al. (US 8,465,011 B2).
Regarding claim 5, Ozono discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 3. Ozono, however, does not explicitly disclose that the non-planar chucking surface comprises a plurality of pyramidal shapes or a plurality of conical shapes.
Segawa teaches that it is well known to provide a similar apparatus (Abstract; figs. 1-3), comprising: a substrate chuck (2) having a non-planar chucking surface (fig. 1: top of 2) configured to hold the source substrate (3); wherein the non-planar chucking surface comprises a plurality of pyramidal shapes or a plurality of conical shapes (4) (fig. 1; col. 3, lines 27-46).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Ozono to incorporate the preferred conical shape of the supporting projections of the non-planar surface of Segawa. POSITA would have realized that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. IN this instance, Segawa teaches that the shape is not critical and can be selected as desired. As such, the conical shape of Segawa can be easily and readily employed to achieve the desired deformation of the substrate without severing, cracking or otherwise damaging the substrate during manufacturing steps. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special conical protrusion was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old apparatus of Ozono with the well-known conical shapes of Segawa. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the concurrently mailed PTO-892, as all of those cited references are considered to be pertinent to the claimed invention. For example, Watanabe (CN-101529577-A) is held to disclose most, if not all, of the limitations of at least claim 1. The Watanabe reference is not currently applied as an anticipation rejection due to the completeness of the above applied art, and in order to avoid an overly long Office Action or duplicative rejections.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey T Carley whose telephone number is (571)270-5609. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571)272-3460. 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.
/JEFFREY T CARLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729