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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, figs. 9-10 in the reply filed on 18 November 2025 is acknowledged. In the requirement for restriction filed 2 October 2025, claims 13 and 15 were initially identified as being drawn to the non-elected Species B, figs. 13-14. After reviewing the claims, claim 5 is also identified as being drawn to Species B in addition to claim 13. Claim 5 has the almost the same limitations as claim 13, and claim 5 is directed toward the pressing rod embodiment shown in figs. 13-14. Therefore, claims 5, 13, and 15 are withdrawn from consideration.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not in narrative form but instead uses the same phraseology as claim 1. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are the following:
“load control portion” in claims 1, 8, and 11
The generic placeholder is “portion” and the functional limitations are “load control” and “bent and deformed upon receiving pressing force such that a zero- stiffness load smaller than a critical damage load of the new element is applied to the new element.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes “silicone rubber, urethane rubber, fluororubber, ethylene-propylene-diene rubber (EPDM), nitrile-butadiene rubber (NBR), polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), [or]… a photoresist.”
“flow rate control portion” in claim 9.
The generic placeholder is “portion” and the functional limitations are “flow rate control” and “controlling a flow rate of the fluid through the fluid inlet to regulate adhesion between the elastic layer and the new element.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites “a flow rate control portion controlling a flow rate of the fluid through the fluid inlet to regulate adhesion between the elastic layer and the new element,” but the Specification fails to disclose any structure in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to readily understand what “a flow rate control portion” is or that the inventor possessed the claim subject matter at the time of filing.
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.
In claim 9, the limitation “flow rate control portion” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14 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 1-2, 4, 7-12, and 14 recite certain participial phrases (phrases that begin with verbs ending in -ing) for active verbs, and it is unclear if these phrases are intended to be method steps or functional limitations. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the methods steps for using the apparatus is indefinite (MPEP 2173.05.p.II). It is unclear if infringement occurs based on the structure of the apparatus that is configured to perform the functional limitation or instead based on a method step that uses the structure of the apparatus. For example, claim 1 recites: “…a bonding material transfer stamp transferring a new bonding material to a repair area on a substrate…” The phase “transferring a new bonding material to a repair area on a substrate” is a participial phrase that modifies the claimed “transfer stamp.” Does this phrase mean that the “transfer stamp” needs to be “transferring” (a method step) or does this phrase instead mean that the transfer step needs to be configured to “transfer” (a functional limitation)? Recommend inserting “for” or “configured to” in front of these phrases in order to remove this ambiguity from the claims. The specific words at issue are the active verbs that can also be interpreted as method steps, i.e., “transferring” (claim 1), “being bent and deformed upon receiving” (claims 1, 8, and 11), “removing” (claim 2), “being fed” (claims 4 and 14), “pressing,” (claims 4 and 12), “heating” (claims 7 and 10), and “controlling” (claim 9).
Claim 1 recites: “An apparatus for repairing elements, comprising: a bonding material transfer stamp transferring a new bonding material to a repair area on a substrate, the repair area having a defective element or a residual bonding material removed therefrom…” It is unclear how the “repair area” fits within the scope set by the preamble for the “apparatus for repairing elements.” In other words, it is unclear how the “repair area” can be included within the structure of the “apparatus.” This construction is similar to a claim for a pencil, where the paper with erasable marks is within the claim scope, but the actual eraser is not claimed. As a result, it is unclear if the limitations attributed to the “repair area” are within the scope of the claim. Recommend inserting the “removal stamp” from claim 2 into claim 1 and attributing these limitations to the “removal stamp” instead of the “repair area.”
Claims 1, 8, and 11 recite: “a zero- stiffness load smaller than a critical damage load of the new element is applied to the new element.” It is unclear how much of a load is considered to be a “zero-stiffness load” that is “smaller than a critical damage load.” Additionally, the term “critical” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “critical” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of the examination, this limitation will be interpreted such that if there is a load that does not result in any damage to the “new element,” then this load is considered to be a “zero- stiffness load smaller than a critical damage load of the new element.”
Claim 9 recites “an exterior,” but it is not clear what the claimed “exterior” is an exterior of. Is an exterior of the apparatus, the element transfer stamp, or the fluid inlet being claimed? For the purpose of the examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “an exterior of the fluid inlet.”
Claim 14 recites “multiple new elements.” It is unclear how these “multiple new elements” fit within the structure of the “new element” that is recited in claim 1. For example, if there are multiple new elements, do there also need to be multiple defective elements or residual bonding materials as well as multiple repair areas and multiple new bonding materials (reference the structure from claim 1)? For the purpose of the examination, this limitation will be interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation such that the “new element” of claim 1 can be one of the “multiple new elements” but all of the “multiple new elements” do not inherit the additional structure implicit to claim 1 for the specific “new element.”
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected based on its dependency to claim 1.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (KR-101953645-B1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provide English translation for written disclosure) in view of Kim et al. (WO-2019107960-A1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provide English translation for written disclosure; hereinafter Kim ‘960).
Regarding claim 1, Han teaches an apparatus (fig. 1b) for repairing elements (“Apparatus and method for repairing led substrate,” title), comprising:
a bonding material transfer stamp (bonding material dispenser 350, fig. 4b; a stamp is not disclosed) transferring a new bonding material (new conductive bonding material 57, fig. 4b) to a repair area (defect occurrence area DA, fig. 4b) on a substrate (substrate 50, fig. 4b), the repair area having a defective element (defect LED 54, fig. 3c) or a residual bonding material removed (remaining conductive bonding material 56, fig. 3d) therefrom; and
an element transfer stamp (LED seating part 460, fig. 5c; a “stamp” is not disclosed) transferring a new element (new LED 60, fig. 5c) to the new bonding material.
Han, figs. 4b and 5c
PNG
media_image1.png
422
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
318
412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Han does not explicitly disclose a bonding material transfer stamp; an element transfer stamp, wherein the element transfer stamp comprises a load control portion for elements, the load control portion being bent and deformed upon receiving pressing force such that a zero- stiffness load smaller than a critical damage load of the new element is applied to the new element.
However, in the same field of endeavor of microelement transfer devices, Kim ‘960 teaches a bonding material transfer stamp (fig. 3; “plate-type transfer device,” page 6; construed as a stamp); an element transfer stamp (fig. 3; “plate-type transfer device,” page 6; construed as a stamp), wherein the element transfer stamp comprises a load control portion (load control layer 220, fig. 9; “PDMS,” page 11; construed as silicone rubber) for elements (“micro element,” page 12), the load control portion being bent and deformed (load control layer 220 is bent and deformed, fig. 9) upon receiving pressing force (force “F,” fig. 9) such that a zero- stiffness load (zero stiffness region ZA1, fig. 6) smaller than a critical damage load of the new element is applied to the new element (“breakage of the micro element 50 can be prevented,” page 12).
Kim ‘960, figs. 3 and 10
PNG
media_image3.png
660
864
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
844
846
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Han, in view of the teachings of Kim ‘960, by using plate-type transfer devices, as taught by Kim ‘960, for the dispenser 350 and seating part 460, as taught by Han, that had a carrier film 200 on the bottom surface, as taught by Han, where the compression force was kept below a region ZA1, as taught by Han, in order to use a flexible plate-type stamp transfer device, which is widely used, where the transfer device includes an elastic carrier film that deforms, for the advantage of ensuring that the micro element is not damaged, even in the event that there is a load control error in the pressing force applied to the micro element by the transfer device (Kim ‘960, pages 6 and 10).
Regarding claim 2, Han teaches, further comprising: a removal stamp (removal module 260, figs. 3c-3d; a stamp is not disclosed) removing the defective element (LED 54, fig. 3c) on the substrate or the residual bonding material (material 56, fig. 3d) remaining after removal of the defective element.
Han does not explicitly disclose a removal stamp.
However, in the same field of endeavor of microelement transfer devices, Kim ‘960 teaches a removal stamp (fig. 3; “plate-type transfer device,” page 6; construed as a stamp).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Han, in view of the teachings of Kim ‘960, by using a plate-type transfer device, as taught by Kim ‘960, for the removal module 260, as taught by Han, in order to use a flexible plate-type stamp transfer device, which is widely used in the art (Kim ‘960, pages 6 and 10; module 260 moves up and down and bonds with the devices similar to a stamp, page 12 and figs. 3c-d).
Regarding claim 8, Han teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the removal stamp further comprises: a load control portion for removal, the load control portion being bent and deformed upon receiving pressing force such that a zero-stiffness load smaller than a critical damage load of the defective element is applied to the defective element.
However, in the same field of endeavor of microelement transfer devices, Kim ‘960 teaches wherein the removal stamp (fig. 3) further comprises: a load control portion (load control layer 220, fig. 9; “PDMS,” page 11; construed as silicone rubber) for removal (the plate-type transfer device taught in fig. 3 of Kim ‘960 is construed as being the removal module 260 taught by Han, which is used for removal), the load control portion being bent and deformed (load control layer 220 is bent and deformed, fig. 9) upon receiving pressing force (force “F,” fig. 9) such that a zero- stiffness load (zero stiffness region ZA1, fig. 6) smaller than a critical damage load of the new element is applied to the new element (“breakage of the micro element 50 can be prevented,” page 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Han, in view of the teachings of Kim ‘960, by using a plate-type transfer device, as taught by Kim ‘960, as the removal module 260, as taught by Han, that had a carrier film 200 on the bottom surface, as taught by Han, where the compression force was kept below a region ZA1, as taught by Han, in order to use a flexible plate-type stamp transfer device, which is widely used, where the transfer device includes an elastic carrier film that deforms, for the advantage of ensuring that the micro element is not damaged, even in the event that there is a load control error in the pressing force applied to the micro element by the transfer device (Kim ‘960, pages 6 and 10).
Claims 3-4, 6, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (KR-101953645-B1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provide English translation for written disclosure) in view of Kim et al. (WO-2019107960-A1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provide English translation for written disclosure; hereinafter Kim ‘960) as applied to claims 1-2 above and further in view of Shindo et al. (JP-2006172166-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provide English translation for written disclosure).
Regarding claim 3, Han teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the removal stamp comprises: multiple pads contacting the defective element, one of the multiple pads being selected to be adhesively attached to the defective element.
However, in the same field of endeavor of microelement transfer devices, Shindo teaches wherein the removal stamp (fig. 1) comprises: multiple pads (“a,” fig. 5a construed as multiple pads that located on the tape 5’, fig. 1) contacting the defective element (IC chip 1, fig. 6), one of the multiple pads being selected to be adhesively attached to the defective element (ACF is an adhesive; “IC chip 1 sufficiently adhere to the ACF 101,” page 8).
Shindo, fig. 6
PNG
media_image5.png
728
806
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Han, in view of the teachings of Shindo, by using the second embodiment of fig. 1 that uses an ACF sheet to join an IC chip to a tape, as taught by Shindo, as the removal module 260, as taught by Han, where instead of a plate-type transfer device, as taught by Kim ‘960, an upper pusher 30’ was used with a ceramic heater, as taught by Shindo, in order to use a continuous tape that is used to pick up the defective LED devices and residual materials that are bonded using thermocompression ACF bonding, for the advantage of automating and facilitating the removal of the defective LEDs as a result of using the tape in comparison to removing the defective LEDs one at a time, which requires more manual labor and is much slower (Shindo, page 2).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Han in view of Kim ‘960 and Shindo as set forth above regarding claim 3 teaches the invention of claim 4. Specifically, Shindo teaches wherein the removal stamp (fig. 1) further comprises: a tape (tape 5’, fig. 5a) having a lower surface (bottom of tape 5’, fig. 6) to which the multiple pads are attached in a row (as shown in fig. 5a; the tape 5 is also shown in fig. 1), the tape being fed by a pair of rollers (reels 51 and 52, fig. 1) spaced apart from each other and connected to the tape (tape 5, fig. 1); and a pressing head (upper pusher 30’, fig. 6) disposed on an upper surface of the tape (upper surface of tape 5’, fig. 6) to be vertically movable (“z-axis direction,” page 6) and pressing the tape downward to press one of the multiple pads (ACF sheet 101, fig. 6; ACF sheet 101 is located with “a,” fig. 5a) against the defective element (IC chip 1, fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Han in view of Kim ‘960 and Shindo as set forth above regarding claim 3 teaches the invention of claim 6. Specifically, Shindo teaches wherein the pad (“a,” fig. 5a) comprises: a receiving groove (recess 7, fig. 5a) formed on a lower surface of the pad to receive the defective element (IC chip 1, fig. 5b) therein; a heater (“ceramic heater,” page 8; the heater is located inside the upper pusher 30’, fig. 6; the upper pusher 30’ is construed as being part of the claimed “pad”) disposed around the receiving groove (upper heater 30’ is disposed around the ACF sheet 101 in order to provide “thermocompression,” page 8; construed such that the heater is around the ACF sheet 101; ACF sheet 101 is aligned with the recess 7, figs. 5a-b); and an adhesive layer (ACF sheet 101, fig. 6; “sufficiently adhere,” page 8) disposed in the receiving groove (recess 7, fig. 5a) and heated by the heater (“thermocompression bonding,” page 8) to allow the defective element received in the receiving groove to be adhesively attached to the adhesive layer (“sufficiently adhere,” page 8; figs. 5a-b).
Regarding claim 12, Han teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the bonding material transfer stamp comprises: a tape having a lower surface to which multiple new bonding materials are attached in a row, the tape being fed by a pair of rollers spaced apart from each other and connected to the tape; and a pressing head disposed on an upper surface of the tape to be vertically movable and pressing the tape downward to press one of the multiple new bonding materials against the repair area.
However, in the same field of endeavor of microelement transfer devices, Shindo teaches wherein the bonding material transfer stamp (fig. 1) further comprises: a tape (tape 5, fig. 4) having a lower surface to which multiple new bonding materials (adhesive 9, fig. 4; fig. 2 shows multiple adhesives 9) are attached in a row (fig. 2), the tape being fed by a pair of rollers (reels 51 and 52, fig. 1) spaced apart from each other and connected to the tape (tape 5, fig. 1); and a pressing head (upper pusher 30, fig. 4) disposed on an upper surface of the tape (upper surface of tape 5, fig. 4) to be vertically movable (“z-axis direction,” page 6) and pressing the tape downward to press one of the multiple new bonding materials against the repair area (adhesive 9 is pressed against the area below IC chip 1, fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Han, in view of the teachings of Shindo, by using the first embodiment of fig. 1 that uses an adhesive 9 join an IC chip from a tape to a bottom substrate, as taught by Shindo, as the bonding material dispenser 350, as taught by Han, where instead of a plate-type transfer device, as taught by Kim ‘960, an upper pusher 30 was used, as taught by Shindo, in order to use a continuous tape that is used to deliver new replacement LED devices, for the advantage of automating and facilitating the delivery of replacement LEDs as a result of using the tape in comparison to removing the defective LEDs one at a time, which requires more manual labor and is much slower (Shindo, page 2).
Regarding claim 14, Han teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the element transfer stamp further comprises: a tape having a lower surface to which multiple new elements are attached in a row, the tape being fed by a pair of rollers spaced apart from each other and connected to the tape; and a pressing head disposed on an upper surface of the tape to be vertically movable and pressing the tape downward to press one of the multiple new elements against the new bonding material.
However, in the same field of endeavor of microelement transfer devices, Shindo teaches wherein the bonding material transfer stamp (fig. 1) further comprises: a tape (tape 5, fig. 4) having a lower surface to which multiple new elements (IC chip 1, fig. 4; fig. 1 shows multiple IC chips 1) are attached in a row (fig. 1), the tape being fed by a pair of rollers (reels 51 and 52, fig. 1) spaced apart from each other and connected to the tape (tape 5, fig. 1); and a pressing head (upper pusher 30, fig. 4) disposed on an upper surface of the tape (upper surface of tape 5, fig. 4) to be vertically movable (“z-axis direction,” page 6) and pressing the tape downward to press one of the multiple new elements (IC chip 1, fig. 4) against the bonding material (adhesive 9, fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Han, in view of the teachings of Shindo, by using the first embodiment of fig. 1 that uses an adhesive 9 join an IC chip from a tape to a bottom substrate, as taught by Shindo, as the LED seating part 460, as taught by Han, where instead of a plate-type transfer device, as taught by Kim ‘960, an upper pusher 30 was used, as taught by Shindo, in order to use a continuous tape that is used to deliver new replacement LED devices, for the advantage of automating and facilitating the delivery of replacement LEDs as a result of using the tape in comparison to removing the defective LEDs one at a time, which requires more manual labor and is much slower (Shindo, page 2).
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (KR-101953645-B1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provide English translation for written disclosure) in view of Kim et al. (WO-2019107960-A1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provide English translation for written disclosure; hereinafter Kim ‘960) and Shindo et al. (JP-2006172166-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provide English translation for written disclosure) as applied to claims 1-3 and 6 above and further in view of Ayotte et al. (US-20170312841-A1).
Han teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the heater is an induction heater inductively heating a bonding material electrically connecting the defective element to the substrate.
However, in the same field of endeavor of microelement transfer devices, Ayotte teaches wherein the heater is an induction heater (induction heater 48, fig. 1) inductively heating a bonding material (solder bump 50, fig. 3) electrically connecting the defective element to the substrate (the solder is used to electrically connect the chip 12 to the substrate 14, fig. 3).
Ayotte, fig. 1
PNG
media_image6.png
991
1047
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Han, in view of the teachings of Ayotte, by using an induction heater, as taught by Ayotte, instead of a ceramic heater, as taught by Han, and a heating part 250, as taught by Han, and by melting the bonding material, as taught by Ayotte, under the defective LED during its removal, as taught by Han in figs. 3b-c, because this amounts to a simple substitution of one heater known in the art for another with predictable results (the change of using a heater that is specifically an induction heater, as taught by Ayotte, instead of ceramic heater, as taught by Shindo, or a generic heating part, as taught by Han, will not change the operation of the heater as it provides heating).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (KR-101953645-B1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provide English translation for written disclosure) in view of Kim et al. (WO-2019107960-A1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provide English translation for written disclosure; hereinafter Kim ‘960) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Wang et al. (US-20080128081-A1).
Han teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the element transfer stamp further comprises: a fluid inlet through which a fluid supplied from an exterior of the fluid inlet passes; an elastic layer inflated downward by the fluid introduced through the fluid inlet, the elastic layer having adhesive strength; and a flow rate control portion controlling a flow rate of the fluid through the fluid inlet to regulate adhesion between the elastic layer and the new element.
However, in the same field of endeavor of microelement transfer devices, Wang teaches wherein the element transfer stamp (fig. 1a) further comprises: a fluid inlet (vacuum conduit 30, fig. 1a) through which a fluid supplied from an exterior of the fluid inlet passes (the vacuum conduit connects with a “vacuum pump,” para 0031; construed such that air passes into the conduit 30; air is a gas, which is a fluid); an elastic layer (bottom layer of figs. 1A-b; made of “compliant, inert material (such as silicone rubber, Buna-N rubber, Viton rubber, or other suitable material),” para 0031; construed as being elastic material) inflated downward by the fluid introduced through the fluid inlet (fig. 1b; para 0034), the elastic layer having adhesive strength (“adhesion,” para 0015); and a flow rate control portion (“vacuum pump,” para 0031) controlling a flow rate (“resulting pressure gradient,” para 0036) of the fluid through the fluid inlet (conduit 30, fig. 1a) to regulate adhesion between the elastic layer and the new element (a vacuum pump is construed as being able to regulate pressure as well as suction, which causes adhesion).
Wang, fig. 1b
PNG
media_image7.png
426
794
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Han, in view of the teachings of Wang, by using a pick-up head, as taught by Wang, instead of a plate-type transfer device, as taught by Kim ‘960, for the LED seating part 460, as taught by Han, in order to use a pick-up head where the contour on the face of the pick-up head changes in extension, resulting in adhesion at the face for a planar objection, because this type of head has been found to be especially suitable for situations in which the planar object is a semiconductor device (Wang, paras 0014-0015).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (KR-101953645-B1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provide English translation for written disclosure) in view of Kim et al. (WO-2019107960-A1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provide English translation for written disclosure; hereinafter Kim ‘960) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kim et al. (KR-20180087896-A; referencing foreign version for drawings and provide English translation for written disclosure; hereinafter Kim ‘896).
Regarding claim 10, Han teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: a reflow stamp bonding the new element to the new bonding material by pressing and heating the new element, wherein the reflow stamp comprises: a pressure heater heating the new element and the new bonding material while pressing the new element; and a buffer layer disposed around the pressure heater, the buffer layer being brought into close contact with elements around the new element when the pressure heater presses the new element.
However, in the same field of endeavor of microelement transfer devices, Kim ‘896 teaches further comprising: a reflow stamp (pressing portion 200, film 300, and laser irradiating unit 400, fig. 5; the pressing portion 200 is construed as being a “stamp”) bonding the new element (substitute element E2, fig. 5) to the new bonding material by pressing and heating the new element (bottom of page 9; heat is provided by the laser irradiating unit 400), wherein the reflow stamp comprises: a pressure heater (pressing portion 200, and laser irradiating unit 400, fig. 5) heating the new element and the new bonding material while pressing the new element (bottom of page 9); and a buffer layer (film 300, fig. 5) disposed around the pressure heater (film 300 is extends to the left and right of the portion 200 and unit 400, fig. 5), the buffer layer being brought into close contact with elements around the new element (substitute element E2, fig. 5) when the pressure heater presses the new element (bottom of page 9).
Kim ‘896, fig. 5
PNG
media_image8.png
684
876
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Han, in view of the teachings of Kim ‘896, by using a pressing portion 200, film 300, and laser irradiating unit 400, as taught by Kim ‘896, instead of a heating unit 550, as taught by Han, in order to press the part while the laser melts the replacement solder, for the advantage of ensuring that that substitute element 2 is surely adhered to the substrate (Kim ‘896, bottom of page 9).
Regarding claim 11, Han teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the reflow stamp further comprises: a load control portion for removal, the load control portion being bent and deformed upon receiving pressing force such that a zero-stiffness load smaller than a critical damage load of the defective element is applied to the defective element.
However, in the same field of endeavor of microelement transfer devices, Kim ‘960 teaches wherein the reflow stamp (fig. 3) further comprises: a load control portion (load control layer 220, fig. 9; “PDMS,” page 11; construed as silicone rubber) for removal (the plate-type transfer device taught in fig. 3 of Kim ‘960 is construed as being the pressing portion 200 taught by Kim ‘896, which is used for reflowing the solder onto the substitute element), the load control portion being bent and deformed (load control layer 220 is bent and deformed, fig. 9) upon receiving pressing force (force “F,” fig. 9) such that a zero- stiffness load (zero stiffness region ZA1, fig. 6) smaller than a critical damage load of the new element is applied to the new element (“breakage of the micro element 50 can be prevented,” page 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Han, in view of the teachings of Kim ‘960, by using a plate-type transfer device, as taught by Kim ‘960, as the pressing plate 200, as taught by Kim ‘896, where the film 300, as taught by Kim ‘896, had a carrier film 200 on the bottom surface, as taught by Han, such that the compression force was kept below a region ZA1, as taught by Han, in order to use a flexible plate-type stamp transfer device, which is widely used, where the transfer device includes an elastic carrier film that deforms, for the advantage of ensuring that the micro element is not damaged, even in the event that there is a load control error in the pressing force applied to the micro element by the transfer device (Kim ‘960, pages 6 and 10).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chaji et al. (US-20170215280-A1) teach transferring microdevices between substrates.
Lin e al. (US-20210050271-A1) teach transferring microdevices between substrates.
Hsieh et al. (US-20210202793-A1) teach transferring microdevices between substrates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 1/24/2026