DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Medicine
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 16/3/2026.
The Examiner notes claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined; claim(s) 1, 10, & 16-20 is/are currently amended, and all other claims are original or previously presented.
Please see the Response to Amendments and Response to Arguments sections below for more details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4, 6, 13, & 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claims 4, 6, 13, & 19. The claims all state limitations that are already found in their respective independent claims.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUNG et al. (US 20140027068) in view of Oka et al. (US 20210288021), hereinafter Hung & Oka, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, 10, & 16. (Each claim status is listed above in the Status of Claims section) Hung discloses a nozzle for holding and keeping disaggregated die flat during bonding [Fig 3; ¶19; 18], the nozzle comprising:
vacuum trenches configured to allow a flow of air associated with generating a vacuum suction for lifting disaggregated die [Fig 3; ¶19; 18 has trenches (20) in communication with a suction hole (22)], the vacuum trenches having a depth [Fig 3]…,
wherein the vacuum trenches are positioned to be axially unaligned with any mold dishes of the disaggregated die when lifting the disaggregated die [Fig 3; the 20 are axially unaligned with any mold dishes of the disaggregated die], and wherein the vacuum trenches extend radially from the center of the nozzle outward toward the corners of the nozzle in a snowflake pattern [Fig 3; 20 are in a snowflake pattern extending radially from the center of the nozzle].
Hung may not explicitly disclose the vacuum trenches having a depth of at least 200 micrometers.
However Oka teaches a similar nozzle with the vacuum trenches having a depth of at least 200 micrometers [Fig 1A-1C; ¶25; nozzle (100) has trenches (106, 120, & 126-129) that have a depth of 0.1-2 mm (100-2000 micrometers)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vacuum trenches as disclosed by Hung to have the vacuum trenches having a depth of at least 200 micrometers as taught by Oka as pursuant of MPEP 2144.05-II-A, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In the instant case, a person having ordinary skill in the art would adjust the depth of the vacuum trenches to such a dimension that would be most useful for a particular application, based on the size and geometry of the vacuum trenches and on basic engineering principles.
Claim 4, 6, 13, & 19 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1, 10, or 16 respectively.
Regarding claim 2, 11, & 17. Hung as modified teaches the nozzle of claim 1, wherein a depth of the vacuum trenches is at least 250 micrometers [Oka: ¶25; the trench depth can be 250 micrometers].
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 & 2 but as the first combination of Hung and Oka after claim 10.
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2 but depends from claim 15.
Regarding claim 3, 12, & 18. Hung as modified teaches the nozzle of claim 1, wherein a depth of the vacuum trenches is at least 500 micrometers [Oka: ¶25; the trench depth can be 500 micrometers].
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 & 3 but as the first combination of Hung and Oka after claim 10.
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3 but depends from claim 15.
Regarding claim 5 & 20. Hung as modified teaches the nozzle of claim 4, wherein the vacuum trenches do not reach the corners of the nozzle [Hung: Fig 3].
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5 but depends from claim 16.
Regarding claim 7. Hung as modified teaches the nozzle of claim 4, wherein the vacuum trenches are not in a rectangular pattern [Hung: Fig 3; 20 are not in a rectangular pattern].
Regarding claim 8-9 & 15. Hung as modified teaches the nozzle of claim 1, but may not explicitly disclose wherein a width of the vacuum trenches is at least 250 micrometers.
However Oka teaches that wherein a width of the vacuum trenches can be any suitable width [¶25; any suitable width can be 250 micrometers].
Claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8 but for 500 micrometers.
However it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the width of the vacuum trenches as taught by Hung as modified to be at least 250 micrometers since it has been held that "where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimension would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device" MPEP 2144.04-IV-A. In the instant case, the vacuum trenches of Hung as modified would not operate differently with the claimed width. The trenches would function appropriately have the claimed width. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the claimed width.
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 9.
Response to Arguments
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Applicant's amendments and arguments, see Pages 5, filed 6/3/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 3/3/2026 are withdrawn.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102 & 103
Applicant's arguments, see Pages 5-8, filed 6/3/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant claims that as Hung is optimized for standard monolithic structures and Oka teaches generalized nozzle configurations and therefore they cannot be combined.However, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). A person of ordinary skill in the art would see that a snowflake layout can be used with a deeper depth regardless of what the specific optimizations might be. Further Wirz et al. (US 20210159206) shows another bonding vacuum chuck with a snowflake pattern with more generalized configurations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited, PTO form 892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AARON R MCCONNELL whose telephone number is (303)297-4608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 0700-1600 MST [0900-1800 EST] 2nd Friday 0700-1500 MST [0900-1700 EST].
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/AARON R MCCONNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights