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 .
Response to Amendment
An amendment responsive to the non-final Office Action dated July 23, 2025 was submitted on October 22, 2025. Claims 1, 4, 5, 15 and 18 were amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
The amendments to claims 4 and 18 have overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) of claims 4, 5 and 18 (¶¶ 3-4 of the Office Action). These rejections have therefore been withdrawn.
The amendments to claims 1 and 15 have overcome the prior art rejections of claims 1-4 and 6-20 (¶¶ 7-15 and 20-35 of the Office Action). These rejections have therefore been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection of these claims have been made as detailed below.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (U.S. Patent No. 6,864,570 B2) in view of Arase et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,867,563 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Smith ‘570 discloses a micro semiconductor chip transfer method (Abstract of Smith ‘570, method for assembling microstructures onto a substrate through fluid transport; 1:41-47 of Smith ‘570, microstructures include semiconductor devices) comprising: preparing a transfer substrate comprising an upper portion having grooves formed therein (Abstract of Smith ‘570, substrate has recessed regions thereon); supplying, to the upper portion of the transfer substrate, a suspension comprising micro semiconductor chips and a liquid (Abstract of Smith ‘570, microstructures combined with fluid to create a slurry which is dispensed over the top surface of the substrate having recessed regions thereon); and aligning the micro semiconductor chips in the grooves by sweeping, with an alignment bar, an upper surface of the transfer substrate while the suspension is on the upper surface of the transfer substrate (6:13-18 of Smith ‘570, slurry spread over surface of substrate with a doctor blade), wherein the aligning comprises moving, with the alignment bar, at least one of the micro semiconductor chips from the upper surface of the transfer substrate, outside of the grooves, into at least one of the grooves (6:11-13 of Smith ‘570, during the spreading step, the microstructures self-align and settle into the recessed regions).
Smith ‘570 does not specifically disclose that the alignment bar (i.e., the doctor blade) comprises a hydrophobic wiper. Moreover, Smith ‘570 is silent as to the material from which the doctor blade is made. Arase, however, discloses a method of mounting a plurality of components dispersed in a liquid onto a substrate by moving a squeegee over the surface of the substrate (Abstract of Arase). According to Arase, the squeegee can be made from polyethylene (13:63-67 of Arase) which is a hydrophobic material. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a polyethylene squeegee as the doctor blade in the method of Smith ‘570 since Arase establishes that it was known to use polyethylene as a material for doctor blades in component transfer methods. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Arase does not specifically disclose that the hydrophobic wiper comprises a material insoluble in a polar solvent. Jacobsen, however, discloses that the roller comprises polyethylene (13:63-67 of Arase) which polymer would necessarily be insoluble in a polar solvent such as water.
Regarding claim 4, Smith ‘570 discloses that the hydrophobic wiper comprises a filter, a mesh, a sheet, or a thin film (6:13-18 of Smith ‘570, slurry spread over surface of substrate with a doctor blade; doctor blade would include a sheet structure forming the blade; claim only requires one of the recited types of wipers).
Regarding claim 6, Smith ‘570 discloses that the liquid comprises at least one from among water, ethanol, alcohol, polyol, ketone, halocarbon, acetone, flux, and an organic solvent (20:67-21:4 of Smith ‘570, slurry comprises water or methanol as the fluid; claim only requires one of the recited liquids)
Regarding claim 7, Smith ‘570 discloses that the suspension further comprises a surfactant (21:19-23 of Smith ‘570).
Regarding claim 8, Smith ‘570 discloses that the supplying the suspension comprises supplying the suspension using a spraying method, a dispensing method, an inkjet dot method, or a method of spilling the suspension onto the transfer substrate (Abstract of Smith ‘570, slurry dispensed onto substrate; claim only requires one of the recited methods of supplying the suspension).
Regarding claim 9, Smith ‘570 discloses that the sweeping with the alignment bar of the upper surface of the transfer substrate comprises reciprocating, translating, rotating, rolling, rubbing, or spinning of the hydrophobic wiper (6:13-18 of Smith ‘570, doctor blade used to move the slurry; movement would necessarily involve translation of the doctor blade relative to the substrate; claim only requires one of the recited types of motion).
Regarding claim 10, Smith ‘570 discloses that the sweeping with the alignment bar of the upper surface of the transfer substrate comprises performing a reciprocating motion, a rotational motion, a translational motion, a rolling motion, a rubbing, or a spinning of the transfer substrate (6:13-18 of Smith ‘570, doctor blade used to move the slurry; movement would necessarily involve a translational motion of the doctor blade relative to the substrate; claim only requires one of the recited methods of sweeping).
Regarding claim 11, Smith ‘570 discloses that the aligning comprises aligning, by the sweeping, the micro semiconductor chips in a same direction in the grooves (FIGS. 6-7 of Smith ‘570, blocks align in recessed regions upon rolling).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith ‘570 ‘570 in view of Arase as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Smith et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,527,964 B1, cited in previous Office Action).
Regarding claim 12, Smith ‘570 does not specifically disclose that each of the micro semiconductor chips comprises a first surface comprising an electrode and a second surface without any electrode, and wherein the aligning comprises aligning, by the sweeping, the micro semiconductor chips in the grooves such that the second surface of each of the micro semiconductor chips faces a bottom of one of the grooves. Smith ‘964, however, discloses a method of performing fluidic self-assembly of elements comprising dispersing the elements in a slurry and dispensing the slurry over a substrate having recessed regions (Abstract of Smith ‘570). Smith ‘964 also discloses that the top portion of the blocks aligned in the recessed regions of the substrate each comprise the circuitry and electrodes for the block (18:60-63 of Smith ‘570). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the electrodes on the upper surfaces of the blocks since Smith ‘964 establishes that it was known to do so at the time the invention was made. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith ‘570 in view of Arase as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Schatz et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0082464 A1, cited in previous Office Action).
Regarding claim 13, Smith ‘570 does not specifically disclose the method further comprising cleaning the transfer substrate by removing, from the transfer substrate, the micro semiconductor chips that are not aligned inside the grooves and at least a portion of the liquid by sweeping the transfer substrate with an absorbent comprising a hydrophilic material. Schatz, however, discloses an apparatus for a fluidic self-assembly process wherein a slurry of blocks and an FSA fluid are deposited onto a transfer substrate (FIG. 1A, [0070] of Schatz, chuck template #113). Schatz also discloses using a clearing roller made of PVA foam (i.e., a hydrophilic material) to remove excess or inverted blocks from the surface of the substrate ([0111] of Schatz). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a PVA foam roller to clean the transfer substrate in the process of Jacobsen. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to remove excess or inverted blocks from the surface of the substrate as taught by Schatz ([0111] of Schatz).
Regarding claim 14, Schatz discloses that the cleaning the transfer substrate comprises moving the absorbent in a reciprocating motion, a translational motion, a rotational motion, a rolling motion, a rubbing motion, or a spinning motion ([0111] of Schatz, clearing roller rotates in a direction opposite the movement of the substrate; roller therefore rotates, rolls, spins and rubs against the transfer substrate).
Claims 15, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith ‘570 in view of Arase and Schatz.
Regarding claim 15, Smith ‘570 discloses a micro semiconductor chip transfer device (Abstract of Smith ‘570, method for assembling microstructures onto a substrate through fluid transport; 1:41-47 of Smith ‘570, microstructures include semiconductor devices) comprising: a transfer substrate comprising an upper portion having grooves formed therein (Abstract of Smith ‘570, substrate has recessed regions thereon); and an align bar that is configured to sweep the transfer substrate (6:13-18 of Smith ‘570, slurry spread over surface of substrate with a doctor blade), wherein the align bar is further configured to move, by sweeping the transfer substrate, the at least one micro semiconductor chip from an upper surface of the transfer substrate, outside of the grooves, into at least one of the grooves (6:11-13 of Smith ‘570, during the spreading step the microstructures self-align and settle into the recessed regions).
Smith ‘570 does not specifically disclose that the align bar (i.e., the doctor blade) comprises a hydrophobic wiper. Moreover, Smith ‘570 is silent as to the material from which the doctor blade is made. Arase, however, discloses a method of mounting a plurality of components dispersed in a liquid onto a substrate by moving a squeegee (i.e., a doctor blade) over the surface of the substrate (Abstract of Arase). According to Arase, the squeegee can be made from polyethylene (13:63-67 of Arase) which is a hydrophobic material. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a polyethylene squeegee as the doctor blade in the method of Smith ‘570 since Arase establishes that it was known to use polyethylene as a material for doctor blades in component transfer methods. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Smith ‘570 also does not specifically disclose a transfer head on which the transfer substrate is seated or a suspension supply module configured to supply a suspension to the upper portion of the transfer substrate on the transfer head, the suspension comprising at least one micro semiconductor chip. Moreover, Smith ‘570 discloses dispensing a slurry containing plurality of blocks (i.e., a suspension of the blocks in a fluid) onto the substrate (Abstract of Smith ‘570), but does not disclose the details of the dispenser or the support for the transfer substrate. Schatz, however, discloses an apparatus for a fluidic self-assembly process wherein a slurry of blocks and an FSA fluid are deposited from a dispenser (FIG. 1A, [0070] of Schatz, dispenser #114) onto a transfer substrate supported by a chuck template #113 (FIG. 1A, [0070] of Schatz, chuck template #113). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to seat the transfer substrate on a chuck template (i.e., a transfer head) and to dispense the slurry from a dispenser (i.e., a suspension supply module) in the method of Jacobsen since Schatz establishes that it was known to do so at the time the invention was made. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 16, Arase does not specifically disclose that the hydrophobic wiper comprises a material insoluble in a polar solvent. Arase, however, discloses that the roller comprises polyethylene (13:63-67 of Arase) which polymer is insoluble in a polar solvent such as water.
Regarding claim 18, Smith ‘570 discloses that the hydrophobic wiper comprises a filter, a mesh, a sheet, or a thin film (6:13-18 of Smith ‘570, slurry spread over surface of substrate with a doctor blade; doctor blade would include a sheet structure forming the blade; claim only requires one of the recited types of wipers).
Regarding claim 19, Smith ‘570 discloses that the suspension further comprises a surfactant (21:19-23 of Smith ‘570).
Regarding claim 20, Smith ‘570 does not specifically disclose the micro semiconductor chip transfer device further comprising a cleaning module comprising an absorbent comprising a hydrophilic material that is configured for cleaning the transfer substrate by removing, from the transfer substrate, at least a portion of the liquid and one or more of the at least one micro semiconductor chip that is not aligned inside the grooves. Schatz, however, discloses using a clearing roller made of PVA foam (i.e., a hydrophilic material) to remove excess or inverted blocks from the surface of the substrate ([0111] of Schatz). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a PVA foam roller to clean the transfer substrate in the process of Jacobsen. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to remove excess or inverted blocks from the surface of the substrate as taught by Schatz ([0111] of Schatz).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith ‘570 in view of Arase as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Jacobsen et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,281,038 B1, cited in previous Office Action).
Regarding claim 3, Smith ‘570 does not specifically disclose that the hydrophobic wiper comprises polytetrafluoroethylene or nylon. Jacobsen, however, discloses a method of assembling blocks into recessed regions of a substrate from a slurry (i.e., fluidic self-assembly) (Abstract, 6:59-61 of Jacobsen) wherein the blocks are pressed into the recessed regions using a roller having a PTFE coating on the outer surface thereof (6:30-32 of Jacobsen). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a doctor blade comprising PTFE since Jacobsen establishes that it was known to use PTFE as a material for tools used to manipulate the slurry in a fluidic self-assembly process. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith ‘570 in view of Arase and Schatz as applied to claim 15 above and further in view of Jacobsen.
Regarding claim 17, Smith ‘570 does not specifically disclose that the hydrophobic wiper comprises polytetrafluoroethylene or nylon (6:30-32 of Jacobsen, roller has a PTFE coating on the outer surface thereof). Jacobsen, however, discloses a method of assembling blocks into recessed regions of a substrate from a slurry (i.e., fluidic self-assembly) (Abstract, 6:59-61 of Jacobsen) wherein the blocks are pressed into the recessed regions using a roller having a PTFE coating on the outer surface thereof (6:30-32 of Jacobsen). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a doctor blade comprising PTFE since Jacobsen establishes that it was known to use PTFE as a material for tools used to manipulate the slurry in a fluidic self-assembly process. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 5, the closest prior art is to Jacobsen. Jacobsen discloses a method as recited in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Jacobsen, however, does not teach or reasonably suggest the method of claim 5 wherein the hydrophobic wiper comprises an opening, and a size of the opening is 100 µm or less.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered to the extent that they apply to the new grounds of rejection but they are not persuasive.
The applicant asserts that Jacobsen does not teach or reasonably suggest that aligning comprises moving, with the alignment bar, the chips from the upper surface of the substrate into the grooves as recited in claims 1 and 15 (pp. 9-10 of the amendment). The Office Action, however, is relying upon the newly cited Smith ‘570 reference to address this limitation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571) 270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746