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 the Group I (claims 1-17) in the reply filed on 03/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-20 (Group II) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Item 304 appears to refer to both “telescoping support” and “telescoping frame” in entire specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-17 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 recites the limitation “a fully extended position than in a compressed position” in lines 7-8 and “a fully extended position” in line 12 and “a compressed position” in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is not clear if they are the same as “fully extended position” and “compressed position” of line 6 or they are different positions.
Claims 2-11 are rejected due to dependency on rejected claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “the telescoping frame” in lines 5 and 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is not clear if “telescoping frame” and “telescoping support” are the same items. For the purpose of this examination they are interpreted to be the same.
Claims 4, 6 and 8 are also rejected for the same reasons regarding limitation “telescoping frame”.
Claim 1 recites “the base frame” in lines 7, 10 and 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is not clear if “the base frame” and the “base” earlier recited in the claim are the same or they are different. For the purpose of this examination they are interpreted to be the same.
Claim 1 recites “the second end of the component support” in lines 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because ends of the component support are not earlier introduced.
Claim 2 recites “a component support first end and a component support second end”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because “the second end of the component support” is earlier recited in claim 1.
Claims 1 and 12 recite “a compressed position (which is shown in Fig. 3A) and a fully extended position (which is shown in Fig. 3B), wherein a second end (324) of the telescoping frame (304) has a distance from a first end (318) of the base frame (302) that is greater in a fully extended position (d1) than in a compressed position (d2)” which is indefinite. Because d2 is actually greater than d1. Therefore for the purpose of this examination this limitation is interpreted to be --a distance from a first end (318) of the base frame (302) that is smaller in a fully extended position (d1) than in a compressed position (d2)-- (see reproduced and annotated Figs. below).
PNG
media_image1.png
893
970
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a fully extended position than in a compressed position” in lines 9-10 and “a fully extended position” in line 14 and “a compressed position” in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is not clear if they are the same as “fully extended position” and “compressed position” of line 8 or they are different positions.
Claims 13-17 are rejected due to dependency on rejected claim 12.
Claim 12 recites “the telescoping frame” in lines 5, 9 and 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is not clear if “telescoping frame” and “telescoping support” are the same items. For the purpose of this examination they are interpreted to be the same.
Claim 17 is also rejected for the same reasons regarding limitation “telescoping frame”.
Claim 12 recites “the base frame” in lines 9, 12 and 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is not clear if “the base frame” and the “base” earlier recited in the claim are the same or they are different. For the purpose of this examination they are interpreted to be the same.
Claim 17 is also rejected for the same reasons regarding limitation “the base frame”.
Claim 12 recites “a component support first end and a component support second end” in lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because “the second end of the component support” is earlier recited in lines 13-14.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Tong (CN 117373979 A).
Regarding claim 1, Tong teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) a semiconductor component assembly platform comprising: a base extending from a first end to a second end; a telescoping support having a first side and a second side movably (X1) connected to the base; and a component support movably (X2) connected to the telescoping frame (2391); a compressed position (Fig. 6) and a fully extended position (Figs. 4-5), wherein a second end of the telescoping frame has a distance from a first end of the base frame that is smaller (see 112(b) rejection above) in a fully extended position (d1 shown in Fig. 4 below) than in a compressed position (d2 shown in Fig. 4 below); and wherein the semiconductor component assembly platform has a compressed length from the first end of the base frame to the second end of the telescoping frame in a compressed position (Fig. 6), and a fully extended length from the first end of the base frame to the second end of the component support in a fully extended position (Figs. 4-5), and the telescoping support has a width (W1) from the first side to the second side, and wherein a ratio of the fully extended length to the telescoping support width is greater than or about 4 (compare fully extended length shown in Figs. 4-5 with W1 shown in Fig. 6 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
1083
1300
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Tong teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the component support comprises a center point between a component support first end and a component support second end, and wherein a stroke length is defined between a location of the center point in the compressed position and a location of the center point in the fully extended position (compare position of the center point from the base second end in Figs. 4 and 6 below).
Regarding claim 3, Tong teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the stroke length is greater than or about 50% of the compressed length (stroke is greater than d2).
Regarding claim 4, Tong teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the telescoping frame, the component support, or both the telescoping frame and the component support are movable in a horizontal plane generally parallel to the base (X1, X2).
Regarding claim 5, Tong teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) a linear actuator (telescopic driving mechanism 233) coupled to one or more linear motion guides (horizontal guide rail 2391).
Regarding claim 6, Tong teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the telescoping frame comprises an aperture (aperture inside 2392), and wherein a first linear motion guide (2391) of the one or more linear motion guides is disposed on a top surface of the base (connected to the top surface of the base via block 2331) and extends through the aperture.
Regarding claim 7, Tong teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the linear actuator is mounted on the telescoping support, and is coupled with the first linear motion guide (via 2391).
Regarding claim 9, Tong teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) a second linear motion guide (rack 234).
Regarding claim 11, Tong teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the linear actuator (233) is disposed at an approximate center point between the first side and the second side of the telescoping support.
Claims 12 and 15 are combination of claims 1, 3 and 5 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 13, Tong teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) a first linear motion guide of the one or more linear motion guides comprises a rack (transmission rack 234) and pinion (transmission gear 2351).
Regarding claim 14, Tong teaches a second linear motion guide of the one or more linear motion guides comprises a ball screw.
PNG
media_image3.png
110
912
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-7, 9, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Coxon (US 20130266405 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Coxon teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) a semiconductor component assembly platform (transfer mechanism 10) comprising: a base extending from a first end to 3a second end; a telescoping support having a first side and a second side movably connected to the base; and a component support movably connected to the telescoping frame; a compressed position (Fig. 2) and a fully extended position (Fig. 1), wherein a second end of the telescoping frame has a distance from a first end of the base frame (d1) that is smaller (see 112(b) rejection above) in a fully extended position than in a compressed position (d2); and wherein the semiconductor component assembly platform has a compressed length from the first end of the base frame to the second end of the telescoping frame in a compressed position, and a fully extended length from the first end of the base frame to the second end of the component support in a fully extended position (compare compresses position in Fig. 2 and extended position in Fig. 1), and the telescoping support has a width (W) from the first side to the second side, and wherein a ratio of the fully extended length to the telescoping support width is greater than or about 4 (compare W with the extended length in Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
966
1209
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Coxon teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the component support comprises a center point between a component support first end and a component support second end, and wherein a stroke length is defined between a location of the center point in the compressed position and a location of the center point in the fully extended position (compare position of the component support center point from the base second end in Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 3, Coxon teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the stroke length is greater than or about 50% of the compressed length (length from center point of the component support to the second end of the base second end is greater than a compressed length which is from the first end of the base to the second end of the telescoping support).
Regarding claims 4-5, Coxon teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the telescoping frame, the component support, or both the telescoping frame and the component support are movable in a horizontal plane generally parallel to the base (linear extension); a linear actuator (epicycloid linear mechanism) coupled to one or more linear motion guides (linear motion guides are interpreted to be the guides on the base and the walls of the U shaped profile).
PNG
media_image5.png
152
890
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Coxon teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the telescoping frame comprises an aperture, and wherein a first linear motion guide of the one or more linear motion guides is disposed on a top surface of the base (top surface of the base of the U shaped profile) and extends through the aperture (aperture is created between the base and the walls of the U shaped profile).
Regarding claim 7, Coxon teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the linear actuator is mounted on the telescoping support, and is coupled with the first linear motion guide.
PNG
media_image6.png
152
890
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Coxon teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) a second linear motion guide (walls of the base of the U shaped profile).
Claims 12 and 15 are combination of claims 1, 3 and 5 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong.
Regarding claim 16, Tong teaches the component support has a component support width (W2) from a component support first side to a component support second side. However Tong does not explicitly teach the telescoping support width is from about 50% to about 99% of the component support width.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the width W2 of the component support base on the wafer size, since there is an absence of criticality to this size and there is also an absence of unexpected results.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong in view of Natu et al. (US 20210100141 A1) hereinafter Natu.
Regarding claim 17, Tong is silent regarding material of the semiconductor component assembly.
Natu in par. 0040 and 0042 teaches conductive metals or alloys (e.g., aluminum alloy A16061) “made of a stable, lightweight material that reduces the end effector's deflection under varying chamber processing conditions including pressure and temperature”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use metal material in the semiconductor component assembly of Tong to reduce deflection under pressure and temperature.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wise et al. (US 20220238369 A1) teaches a semiconductor component assembly with a base, a telescoping support and a component assembly.
PNG
media_image7.png
622
840
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHDI H NEJAD whose telephone number is (571)270-0464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-4pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
MAHDI H. NEJAD
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/MAHDI H NEJAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723