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 .
Applicant is advised that the Notice of Allowance mailed 1/7/2026 is vacated. If the issue fee has already been paid, applicant may request a refund or request that the fee be credited to a deposit account. However, applicant may wait until the application is either found allowable or held abandoned. If allowed, upon receipt of a new Notice of Allowance, applicant may request that the previously submitted issue fee be applied. If abandoned, applicant may request refund or credit to a specified Deposit Account.
The prosecution of the application is re-opened in view of the submitted references on 1/21/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 7, 15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by JP 2014-110262.
JP ‘262 teaches a chip detachment apparatus which peels a diced wafer off an adhesive utilizing a collet including a head (figure 10) and vacuum to peel the chip off the adhesive (see abstract). JP ‘262 teaches the use of a lifting block (55 and Fig. 11c) to raise the chip upward and a vibrator (17) used to assist in the detachment (see the figures). It is noted that the term “block” is broad enough so as to be met by the JP ‘262 apparatus. See dictionary definition below.
block
ˈbläk
noun
a compact usually solid piece of substantial material especially when worked or altered to serve a particular purpose.
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.
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) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2014-110262 as applied to claim 15 above.
JP ‘262 does not specifically teach that the vibration is in a vertical direction substantially perpendicular to the surface of the chip. There are only 3 possibilities for applying the vibration, vertical, horizontal or at an angle (combination of vertical and horizontal). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the vibration vertically, since such is from a limited number of options and would be obvious to try (see KSR rationale E).
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2014-110262 as applied to claim 7 above, in view of Hembree (US 6045026).
Regarding claim 8, JP ‘262 teaches the wafer stage, ejector stage, collet and chip pick-up head as noted in the rejection of claim 7. JP ‘262 differs in not specifying a vibration transfer rod coupled to the head part. Hembree teaches a chip pick-up apparatus. Hembree teaches the use of a vibration transfer rod (upper cylindrical section of pick-up head 12) which transfers vibration to head part and collet. One of ordinary skill in the art would utilize the rod of Hembree in the invention of JP ‘262, since such would be expected to be able to provide vibration to the head and collet of JP ‘262 with a reasonable expectation of success and would yield a predictable result (see KSRT Rationale D).
Regarding claim 9, JP ‘262 does not specifically teach that the vibration is in a vertical direction substantially perpendicular to the surface of the chip. There are only 3 possibilities for applying the vibration, vertical, horizontal or at an angle (combination of vertical and horizontal). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the vibration vertically, since such is from a limited number of options and would be obvious to try (see KSR rationale E).
Regarding claim 10, the vibration generator would necessarily have an actuator in order to vibrate.
With respect to claim 11, JP ‘262 teaches the head part and collet continue to vibrate when the height of the head part and collet increase (see figures and 0038, 0060 and 0061).
Claim(s) 7-16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2014-110262 , in view of KR 20150090452.
With respect to claims 7 and 15, JP ‘262 teaches a chip detachment apparatus which peels a diced wafer off an adhesive utilizing a collet including a head (figure 10) and vacuum to peel the chip off the adhesive (see abstract). JP ‘262 teaches the use of a lifter (55 and Fig. 11c) to raise the chip upward and a vibrator (17) used to assist in the detachment (see the figures). Although JP ‘262 uses what may be broadly defined as a block, such may not be considered a traditional block. KR ‘452 teaches a block apparatus used for pushing up a chip on an adhesive film. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the block lifting apparatus of KR ‘452 in the apparatus of JP ‘262, since such is a known alternative for assisting in elevating chips in a chip pick-up apparatus, and would give a predictable result of raising the chip for detachment in the apparatus of JP ‘262 (KSR rationale B).
Regarding claim 9, JP ‘262 does not specifically teach that the vibration is in a vertical direction substantially perpendicular to the surface of the chip. There are only 3 possibilities for applying the vibration, vertical, horizontal or at an angle (combination of vertical and horizontal). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the vibration vertically, since such is from a limited number of options and would be obvious to try (see KSR rationale E).
Regarding claim 10, the vibration generator would necessarily have an actuator in order to vibrate.
With respect to claim 11, JP ‘262 teaches the head part and collet continue to vibrate when the height of the head part and collet increase (see figures and 0038, 0060 and 0061).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, KR ‘262 teaches the central opening area, the first block and the second block, wherein vacuum is performed in the open area and wherein the first block is lifted a second height that is different than a first height (see abstract and figures).
Regarding claim 14, such is an intended use of the apparatus, which does not distinguish the structure of the apparatus (MPEP 2114 II).
Regarding claim 16, JP ‘262 does not specifically teach that the vibration is in a vertical direction substantially perpendicular to the surface of the chip. There are only 3 possibilities for applying the vibration, vertical, horizontal or at an angle (combination of vertical and horizontal). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the vibration vertically, since such is from a limited number of options and would be obvious to try (see KSR rationale E).
Regarding claim 18, JP ‘262 teaches the head part and collet continue to vibrate when the height of the head part and collet increase (see figures and 0038, 0060 and 0061).
Regarding claim 19, KR ‘262 teaches the central opening area, the first block and the second block, wherein vacuum is performed in the open area and wherein the first block is lifted a second height that is different than a first height (see abstract and figures).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2014-110262 , in view of KR 20150090452 and further in view of Hembree.
JP ‘262 in view of KR is taught above with respect to claim 15. JP ‘262 differs in not specifying a vibration transfer rod coupled to the head part. Hembree a chip pick-up apparatus. Hembree teaches the use of a vibration transfer rod (upper cylindrical section of pick-up head which transfers vibration to head part and collet. One of ordinary skill in the art would utilize the rod of Hembree in the invention of JP ‘262, since such would be expected to be able to provide vibration to head and collet of JP ‘262 with a reasonable expectation of success and would yield a predictable result (see KSRT Rationale D). JP ‘262 shows an electrical vibration generator 17. The vibration generator would necessarily have an actuator in order to vibrate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 6 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 1 in addition to all the other elements indicates that the vibration generator generates vibration in a frequency range of 1 to 500 Hz. The prior such as US 2007/0275544 teach that a frequency as low as 1 KHz can be used to remove a chip from a tape, but fails to teach or suggest a frequency as low as 500 Hz..
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP C TUCKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1095. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745