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, see “Applicants Arguments/Remarks”, filed August 10th, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3, 5-6 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Park (KR 102270623 B1).
Park discloses a vacuum suction pad with a packing pad without a cutout part, which is evenly disposed at the periphery thereof so as not to block the air flow path as much as possible.
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) 1, 3, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Park (KR 102270623 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a vacuum suction pad comprising: a holder (21; see Fig. 11) including a through hole formed therein; a suction pad (63; see Fig. 11) surrounding at least a portion of a side surface of the holder, the suction pad protruding below a lower surface of the holder (see Fig. 11-12) and having flexibility (see Page 8, Para. 4); and a packing pad (64; see Fig. 11-12) on the lower surface of the holder, wherein the packing pad includes a cutout part (see Fig. 12 for the cutout part), and the cutout part allows a space between the suction pad and the packing pad such that the space and the through hole are in fluid communication with each other (see Page 8, Para. 5-8).
Regarding claim 3, Park discloses the vacuum suction pad as claimed in claim 1, wherein a lowermost portion of the suction pad (63; see Fig. 11) protrudes below a lower surface of the packing pad (64; see Fig. 11-12).
Regarding claim 9, Park discloses the vacuum suction head as claimed in claim 1, wherein the suction pad is configured to suck a suction object using a vacuum pressure provided to the through hole (see Page 8, Para. 3-4), and when the suction object is sucked to the suction pad, a lower surface of the packing pad is in contact with the suction object (see Page 6, Para. 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.
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 102270623 B1) in view of Oe (JP 2011177874 A).
Regarding claim 2, Park discloses the vacuum suction head as claimed in claim 1, wherein the
through hole extends in a vertical direction (see Fig. 11 for vacuum suction hole extending in a vertical direction).
Kim fails to disclose wherein in the vertical direction, a distance from the lower surface of the
holder to a lowermost portion of the suction pad is 0.5 mm to 2 mm.
However, Oe teaches a suction pad device wherein in the vertical direction, a distance from the
lower surface of the holder to a lowermost portion of the suction pad is 0.5 mm to 2 mm (see Page 3,
Para. 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein in the vertical direction, a distance from the lower
surface of the holder to a lowermost portion of the suction pad is 0.5 mm to 2 mm on the vacuum
suction head of Kim, as taught by Oe, in order to have a simple structure and can be miniaturized (see
Page 3, Para. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Oe further teaches a suction pad device wherein in the vertical direction, a distance from the lower surface of the holder to a lowermost portion of the suction pad is 0.5 mm to 2 mm (see Page 3, Para. 2). See motivation of claim 2.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 102270623 B1) in view of Kim (KR 102458794 B1).
Regarding claim 5, Park discloses the vacuum suction pad as claimed in claim 1.
Park fails to disclose wherein the holder further includes an exhaust hole, the exhaust hole penetrates through a sidewall of the holder and is in fluid communication with the through hole.
However, Kim teaches a vacuum suction head wherein the holder further includes an exhaust hole (130; see Fig. 5), the exhaust hole penetrates through a sidewall of the holder and is in fluid communication with the through hole (see Page 3, Para. 3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein the holder further includes an exhaust hole, the exhaust hole penetrates through a sidewall of the holder and is in fluid communication with the through hole, on the vacuum suction head of Park, as taught by Kim, so that the vacuum flow path and the valve accommodating space may be connected through the through hole.
Regarding claim 6, Kim further teaches wherein the exhaust hole forms an acute angle with the lower surface of the holder (see Fig. 5 for the exhaust hole at an acute angle to the lower surface of the holder).
Regarding claim 7, Park, in view of Kim, discloses the vacuum suction head as claimed in claim 5.
Park, as modified by Kim, fails to disclose wherein a width of the exhaust hole is 0.5 mm to 2 mm.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice wherein a width of the exhaust
hole is 0.5 mm to 2 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in (the size or shape) of a component. A change in (size or shape) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.IV.A.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 102270623 B1) in view of Kondo (JP 2011029388 A).
Regarding claim 8, Park discloses the vacuum suction head as claimed in claim 1.
Park fails to disclose wherein an outer diameter of a lowermost portion of the suction pad is 15
mm to 25 mm.
However, Kondo teaches a suction pad (20; see Fig. 4) wherein an outer diameter of a
lowermost portion of the suction pad is 15 mm to 25 mm (Page 6, Para. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein an outer diameter of a lowermost portion of the suction pad is 15 mm to 25 mm on the vacuum suction head of Kim, as taught by Kondo, to provide a vacuum chuck pad capable of vacuum chucking a wafer securely (see Abstract).
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 102270623 B1) in view of Jo (KR 101597975 B1), further in view of Oe (JP 2011177874 A) and Kim (KR 102458794 B1).
Regarding claim 10, Park discloses a vacuum suction head comprising: a holder (21; see Fig. 11) including a through hole formed therein; a packing pad (64; see Fig. 11-12) on a lower surface of the holder; and a suction pad (63; see Fig. 11) surrounding a lower portion of the holder, the suction pad (63; see Fig. 11-12) protruding below a lower surface of the packing pad and having flexibility (see Page 8, Para. 4), wherein the through hole extends in a vertical direction (see Fig. 11 for vacuum suction hole extending in a vertical direction), the packing pad includes a cutout part (64; see Fig. 11-12), the cutout part extends in a horizontal direction (see Fig. 11-12), the horizontal direction crosses the vertical direction (see Fig. 11-12),
Park fails to disclose the packing pad having flexibility; wherein in the vertical direction, a distance from the lower surface of the holder to a lowermost portion of the suction pad is 0.5 mm to 2 mm; the holder further includes an exhaust hole, the exhaust hole penetrates through a sidewall of the holder and is in fluid communication with the through hole, and the exhaust hole forms an acute angle with the lower surface of the holder.
However, Jo teaches a suction pad wherein the packing pad (130; see Fig. 2) has flexibility (see Page 6, Para. 3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein the packing pad having flexibility on the vacuum suction head of Park, as taught by Jo, in order to ease the impact on contact between the object and grip (see Page 6, Para. 4).
Further, Oe teaches a suction pad device wherein in the vertical direction, a distance from the
lower surface of the holder to a lowermost portion of the suction pad is 0.5 mm to 2 mm (see Page 3,
Para. 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein in the vertical direction, a distance from the lower
surface of the holder to a lowermost portion of the suction pad is 0.5 mm to 2 mm on the vacuum
suction head of Kim, as modified by Jo, as taught by Oe, in order to have a simple structure and can be miniaturized (see Page 3, Para. 3).
Further, Kim teaches a vacuum suction head wherein the holder further includes an exhaust hole (130; see Fig. 5), the exhaust hole penetrates through a sidewall of the holder and is in fluid communication with the through hole (see Page 3, Para. 3); and wherein the exhaust hole forms an acute angle with the lower surface of the holder (see Fig. 5 for the exhaust hole at an acute angle to the lower surface of the holder).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein the holder further includes an exhaust hole, the exhaust hole penetrates through a sidewall of the holder and is in fluid communication with the through hole; and wherein the exhaust hole forms an acute angle with the lower surface of the holder, on the vacuum suction head of Park, as modified by Jo and Oe, as taught by Kim, so that the vacuum flow path and the valve accommodating space may be connected through the through hole.
Regarding claim 11, Park, in view of Jo, Oe and Kim, discloses the vacuum suction head as claimed in claim 10.
Park, as modified by Jo, Oe and Kim, fails to disclose wherein in the vertical direction, a length of the holder is 15 mm to 25 mm.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice in the vertical direction,
wherein a length of the holder is 15 mm to 25 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in (the size or shape) of a component. A change in (size or shape) is generally recognized
as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.IV.A.
Regarding claim 12, Park, in view of Jo, Oe and Kim, discloses the vacuum suction head as claimed in claim 10.
Park, as modified by Jo, Oe and Kim, fails to disclose wherein on an upper surface of the holder, a diameter of the through hole is 15 mm to 25 mm.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice wherein on an upper surface
of the holder, a diameter of the through hole is 15 mm to 25 mm, since such a modification would have
involved a mere change in (the size or shape) of a component. A change in (size or shape) is generally
recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.IV.A.
Regarding claim 13, Park, in view of Jo, Oe and Kim, discloses the vacuum suction head as claimed in claim 10.
Park, as modified by Jo, Oe and Kim, fails to disclose wherein a width of the exhaust hole is 0.5 mm to 2 mm.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice wherein a width of the exhaust
hole is 0.5 mm to 2 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in (the size or
shape) of a component. A change in (size or shape) is generally recognized as being within the level of
ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.IV.A.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 102270623 B1) in view of in view of Jo (KR 101597975 B1), Oe (JP 2011177874 A) and Kim (KR 102458794 B1), further in view of Kondo (JP 2011029388 A).
Regarding claim 14, Park, in view of Jo, Oe and Kim, discloses the vacuum suction head as claimed in claim 10.
Park, as modified by Jo, Oe and Kim, fails to disclose wherein an outer diameter of a lowermost portion of the suction pad is 15 mm to 25 mm.
However, Kondo teaches a suction pad (20; see Fig. 4) wherein an outer diameter of a
lowermost portion of the suction pad is 15 mm to 25 mm (Page 6, Para. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein an outer diameter of a lowermost portion of the
suction pad is 15 mm to 25 mm on the vacuum suction head of Park, as modified by Jo, Oe and Kim, as taught by Kondo, to provide a vacuum chuck pad capable of vacuum chucking a wafer securely (see Abstract).
Regarding claim 15, Park, in view of Jo, Oe and Kim, discloses the vacuum suction head as claimed in claim 10, wherein the holder (21; see Fig. 11) includes a trench recessed from the lower surface of the holder, and a portion of the packing pad is in the trench (see annotated Fig. 11-12 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
646
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 102270623 B1) in view of Oe (JP 2011177874 A) and Kim (KR102458794 B1), further in view of Harris (US 10036491 B2).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Park, in view of Oe and Kim, discloses the vacuum suction head as
claimed in claim 10, except for the surface resistance of each of the suction pad and the packing pad is
105 ohm/sq to 109 ohm/sq and the suction pad and the packing pad each include hydrogenated
acrylonitrile butadiene rubber (HNBR).
However, Harris teaches it is well known in the art for an inner tube and outer cover may
comprise hydrogenated acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (HNBR) (see Abstract) as a durable synthetic
rubber for resistance to heat, oil, and chemicals.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to construct the suction pad and the packing pad with hydrogenated acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (HNBR), in order to provide resistance to chemical attack, swelling and
permeation (see Col. 20, lines 55-60).
By utilizing HNBR for the suction pad and packing pad, it will have the surface resistance as
recited in claim 16. Alternatively, 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 re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP § 2144.05.II.A
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a
known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design
choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 102270623 B1) in view of Jo (KR 101597975 B1).
Regarding claim 18, Park discloses an apparatus for transferring a semiconductor product (see Fig. 11-12), comprising: a holder (21; see Fig. 11) including a through hole; a picker (10; see Page 3, Para. 7) configured to provide a vacuum pressure to the through hole, the picker having the holder installed thereon (see Page 3, Para. 7); a suction pad (63; see Fig. 11) surrounding at least a portion of a side surface of the holder, the suction pad having flexibility (see Page 8, Para. 4) and being configured to suck a semiconductor product (see Abstract); and a packing pad (64; see Fig. 11-12) on a lower surface of the holder, wherein the packing pad includes a cutout part (see Fig. 11-12 for the packing pad having a cutout part), the cutout part allows a space between the suction pad and the packing pad such that the space and the through hole are in fluid communication with each other (see Page 8, Para. 5-8).
Park fails to disclose wherein the packing pad has flexibility; and a lower surface of the packing pad is in contact with the semiconductor product when the semiconductor product is sucked to the suction pad.
However, Jo teaches a suction pad wherein the packing pad (130; see Fig. 2) having flexibility (see Page 6, Para. 3); and a lower surface of the packing pad is in contact with the semiconductor product when the semiconductor product is sucked to the suction pad (see annotated Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
453
371
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein the packing pad having flexibility; and a lower
surface of the packing pad is in contact with the semiconductor product when the semiconductor
product is sucked to the suction pad, on the vacuum suction head of Park, as taught by Jo, in order to ease the impact on contact between the object and grip (see Page 6, Para. 4).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 102270623 B1) in view of Jo (KR 101597975 B1), further in view of Kim (KR 102458794 B1) and Kim (KR 20220033096 A, hereinafter referred to as “Kim 2”).
Regarding claim 19, Park, in view of Jo, discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 18, wherein the through hole extends in a vertical direction (see Fig. 11 for vacuum suction hole extending in a vertical direction).
Park, as modified by Jo, fails to disclose the holder further includes an exhaust hole, the exhaust hole penetrates through a sidewall of the holder and is in fluid communication with the through hole, the exhaust hole forms an acute angle with the lower surface of the holder; and the semiconductor product includes a solid-state drive (SSD).
However, Kim teaches a vacuum suction head wherein the holder further includes an exhaust hole (130; see Fig. 5), the exhaust hole penetrates through a sidewall of the holder and is in fluid communication with the through hole (see Page 3, Para. 3); and wherein the exhaust hole forms an acute angle with the lower surface of the holder (see Fig. 5 for the exhaust hole at an acute angle to the lower surface of the holder).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein the holder further includes an exhaust hole, the exhaust hole penetrates through a sidewall of the holder and is in fluid communication with the through hole; and wherein the exhaust hole forms an acute angle with the lower surface of the holder, on the vacuum suction head of Park, as modified by Jo, as taught by Kim, so that the vacuum flow path and the valve accommodating space may be connected through the through hole.
Further, Kim 2 teaches a label reattach tool wherein the semiconductor product includes a solid-state drive (SSD) (see Page 4, Para. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein the semiconductor product includes a solid-state drive (SSD), on the vacuum suction head of Park, as modified by Jo and Kim, as taught by Kim 2, for durability and reliability.
Regarding claim 20, Park, in view of Jo, discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 18, wherein the picker (10; see Page 3, Para. 7) is configured to provide the vacuum pressure using a Coanda effect (vacuum pressure is provided through a vacuum passage; see Page 3, Para. 7-8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REHMAN A QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-6262. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-5:00pm.
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, Robert Hodge can be reached at (571) 272-2097. 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.
/REHMAN A QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights