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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach applying a “flexible push” to a side of the transfer substrate on which the electronic component is not disposed or the non-bonded side of the objective substrate. Specifically that the needle 226 of Wednt is not that of a “flexible push”.
Examiner asserts “flexibly push” is a broad term and consistent with the dictionary definition of flexible as capable of bending or flexing. Wendt (US 2018/0141163) paragraph 63 discloses needle 226 may be formed from metal, ceramic, plastic, etc. A person of ordinary skill would recognize these materials can flex/bend to some degree, particularly plastic. Wednt further teaches the needle repeatedly operates without tip breakage or wafer damage. Applicant neither specifies the required flexibility nor claims a gas filled airbag push generator in independent claim 5 that would distinguish over Wendt.
Examiner Suggestion
The Examiner suggests that the Applicant amend independent claim 5 to specific that the flexible push consists of a gas-filled airbag. Furthermore, the Examiner recommends that the Applicant further clarify the distinguishing features believed to overcome the prior art of record and incorporate those distinctions into the independent claim. The examiner remains available for an interview should the Applicant wish to discuss these suggestions.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 5, 8-9, & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wendt et al. (US 2018/0141163) [Hereinafter Wednt].
Regarding claim 5, Wendt teaches A method of bonding an electronic component, comprising:
providing a transfer substrate [fig. 2A, wafer tape 218, para 53] comprising a side [bottom side] on which the electronic component [fig. 2A, die 220, para 54] is disposed [fig. 2A];
providing an objective substrate [fig. 2A, substrate/circuit trace 210/212, para 50] having a bonded side [top side] and a non-bonded side [bottom side];
making the side (bottom side) of the transfer substrate in which the electronic component (fig. 2A, 220) is disposed face the bonded side (top side) of the objective substrate (fig. 2A, 210);
making the transfer substrate (fig. 2B, 218) and the objective substrate (fig. 2B, 210/212) approach each other until the electronic component contacts the bonded side of the objective substrate [fig. 2B, para 64, “Thus, the die 220 may be pressed via the needle 226 toward the product substrate 210 to the extent that the electrical contact terminals (not shown) of the die are able to bond with the circuit trace 212, at which point, the transfer operation proceeds to completion and the die 220 is released from the wafer tape 218.”];
applying a flexible push [fig. 2B, needle 226, para 62-63] to a side of the transfer substrate (fig. 2, 218) on which the electronic component (fig. 2, 220) is not disposed or the non-bonded side of the objective substrate (fig.2);
and applying an energy beam [fig. 2B, laser 236, para 71] to the electronic component (fig. 2, 220), so that the electronic component is released from the transfer substrate and bonded on the bonded side of the objective substrate [para 71, “Upon actuation of a predetermined controlled pulse duration of the laser 236 , the circuit trace 212 may begin to cure (and/or melt or soften) to an extent that a fusing bond may form between the material of the circuit trace 212 and the electrical contact terminals (not shown) on the die 220 . This bond further assists in separating the unpackaged die 220 from the wafer tape 218 , as well as simultaneously affixing the die 220 to the product substrate 210.” ]
Regarding claim 8, Wednt teaches The method of bonding the electronic component according to claim 5, wherein the energy beam is a laser beam [fig. 2B, laser 236, para 71].
Regarding claim 9, Wednt teaches The method of bonding the electronic component according to claim 5,
wherein the electronic component is a light-emitting diode [para 35, “ the machine may secure a product substrate for receiving “unpackaged” dies, such as LEDs . . . .”].
Regarding claim 11, Wednt teaches A method for manufacturing a light-emitting diode display,
comprising bonding a light-emitting diode [fig. 2B, die 220, para 35/54] using the method for bonding the electronic component according to claim 9 [as noted above Wendt teaches the method of claim 9].
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.
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.
Claim(s) 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendt as applied to claims 5, 8-9, & 11 and further in view of Zhou et al. (CN 112151437A) [Hereinafter Zhou].
Regarding claim 6, Wednt teaches The method of bonding the electronic component according to claim 5,
wherein the flexible push is generated by an airbag pushing the side of the transfer substrate that is not provided with the electronic component or the non-bonded side of the objective substrate.
Wednt fails to explicitly disclose wherein the flexible push is generated by an airbag pushing the side of the transfer substrate that is not provided with the electronic component or the non-bonded side of the objective substrate.
Wednt notes in para 72, “Furthermore, a vacuum may be implemented to pull a die from the wafer tape, and air pressure may be implemented to push the die onto a product substrate.”
However Zhou teaches wherein the flexible push is generated by an airbag [fig. 7-9, airbag 311] pushing the side of the transfer substrate that is not provided with the electronic component or the non-bonded side of the objective substrate [para 47-49].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the air pressure to be provided by an airbag to achieve uniform pressure across many tiny components simultaneously preventing damage and ensuring all components are bonded correctly.
Regarding claim 7, Wednt/Zhou teaches The method of bonding the electronic component according to claim 6,
wherein the airbag is produced by inflating a pouch [Zhou, para 47-49].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendt as applied to claims 5, 8-9, & 11 and further in view of Ning et al. (CN207217549U).
Regarding claim 10, Wednt teaches The method of bonding the electronic component according to claim 5,
Wednt fails to explicitly disclose wherein the objective substrate is a thin film transistor substrate.
Wednt notes in para 44, “The term “product substrate” may include, but is not limited to: a wafer tape (for example, to presort the dies and create sorted die sheets for future use); a paper or polymer substrate formed as a sheet or other non-planar shape, where the polymer—translucent or otherwise—may be selected from any suitable polymers, including, but not limited to, a silicone, an acrylic, a polyester, a polycarbonate, etc.; a circuit board (such as a printed circuit board (PCB)); a string or thread circuit, which may include a pair of conductive wires or “threads” extending in parallel; and a cloth material of cotton, nylon, rayon, leather, etc.”
However Ning teaches a thin film transistor substrate comprising a nanopaper substrate [ “A nanopaper substrate thin film transistor comprises a hard substrate, a nanopaper substrate . . . .”].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the product substrate as taught by Wednt to be that of a thin film transistor substrate comprising nanopaper due to its high flexibility for flexible electronics, low cost, and environmental sustainability.
Conclusion
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 FELIX B ANDREWS whose telephone number is (703)756-1074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, William Partridge can be reached at 571-270-1402. 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.
/FELIX B ANDREWS/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812