DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I and Species 1a & 2a in the reply filed on 2/16/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that they might not be mutually exclusive as claims 1 and 8 are generic to all four species.
This is not found persuasive because in species 1 and 2 the bond heads are patentably distinct from each other since they are different in design in that they have different number of vacuum and/or switchable channels.
Though the election was made to include claims 1-11 and 21-29, claims 5-7 are removed from examination as reading upon non-elected species 1b and/or 2b. Claim 5, and its dependent claims 6-7, recites a second switchable channel with a protrusion between the second switchable channel and the first vacuum channel, but elected figure 1A teaches the protrusion 20 is between the first (left channels 16) and second vacuum channels (right channels 16) with the switchable channels 18 outside of the vacuum channels 16.
Therefore the examined claims are 1-4, 8-11 and 21-29.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al., CN 116072560, in view of Ishimoto et al., US 12,444,625.
Regarding claim 1, Long (figure 1) teaches a bonding apparatus, comprising:
a vacuum pump (a gas pressure reducing mechanism, such as a vacuum pump);
a gas pressurizing mechanism, such as a pneumatic pump and so on;
a controller (the first pressure applying device and the second pressure applying device can independently control the application of the corresponding first/second channel internal pressure) communicatively coupled to the vacuum pump and the blower; and
a bonding head, wherein the bonding head 1 comprises:
a main body 12;
a first vacuum channel 116/116a in the main body 12, wherein the first vacuum channel 116/116ais connected to the vacuum pump; and
a first switchable channel 115/115a in the main body 12, wherein the first switchable (the second pressure applying device can be matched with the first pressure applying device to switch from the first working state to the second working state) channel 115/115a is connected to the vacuum pump and the blower.
Long doesn’t teach gas pressurizing mechanism is a blower.
Ishimoto teaches applying pressure through the use of an air blow (column 3, line 62-column 4, line 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the blower of Ishimoto in the invention of Long because Ishimoto teaches a blower is a well known and used apparatus for applying pressure. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
With respect to claim 2, Long (figure 5a) teaches the first vacuum channel 116/116a has a circular opening 114 with a first diameter in a bottom-up view and the first switchable channel 115/115a has a circular opening 113 with a second diameter in the bottom-up view, and though Long fails to teach the first diameter is larger than or equal to the second diameter, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the relative diameters through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 3, though Long fails to teach the second diameter is greater than 0.1 mm, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the relative diameters through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
In re claim 4, though Long fails to teach the first switchable channel is between a first edge of the main body and the first vacuum channel in a bottom-up view, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use this configuration in place of the one in the invention of Long because it is an equivalent configuration known in the art. The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al., CN 116072560, in view of Ishimoto et al., US 12,444,625, and Watanabe et al., US 11,024,596.
Concerning claim 8, Long (figures 1 & 5a) teaches a bonding apparatus, comprising:
a controller (the first pressure applying device and the second pressure applying device can independently control the application of the corresponding first/second channel internal pressure);
a vacuum pump (a gas pressure reducing mechanism, such as a vacuum pump);
a gas pressurizing mechanism, such as a pneumatic pump and so on; and
a bonding head, wherein the bonding head comprises:
a main body 12;
a first plurality of vacuum channels (left 116) in the main body, wherein the first plurality of vacuum channels (left 116) are connected to the vacuum pump, and wherein the controller (the first pressure applying device and the second pressure applying device can independently control the application of the corresponding first/second channel internal pressure) is configured to create vacuum in the first plurality of vacuum channels simultaneously; and
a first plurality of switchable (the second pressure applying device can be matched with the first pressure applying device to switch from the first working state to the second working state) channels (left 115) in the main body, wherein the first plurality of switchable channels (left 115) are connected to the vacuum pump (the first pressure applying device and the second pressure applying device can independently control the application of the corresponding first/second channel internal pressure) and to the blower (the second pressure applying device can be matched with the first pressure applying device to switch from the first working state to the second working state), wherein the controller is configured to create vacuum in the first plurality of switchable channels simultaneously or create blowing in the first plurality of switchable channels simultaneously.
Though Long fails to teach a first vacuum valve, and a second vacuum valve communicatively coupled to the controller; and a gas valve communicatively coupled to the controller, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use vacuum and gas valves in the invention of Long because it is conventionally known and used in the art that valves are what the controller controls in order to supply the vacuum and gas to the channels. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Long doesn’t teach gas pressurizing mechanism is a blower.
Ishimoto teaches applying pressure through the use of an air blow (column 3, line 62-column 4, line 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the blower of Ishimoto in the invention of Long because Ishimoto teaches a blower is a well known and used apparatus for applying pressure. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Long also fails to teach a protrusion on a central portion of a bottom surface of the main body.
Watanabe (figure 3) teaches a protrusion 42 on a central portion of a bottom surface of the main body 40.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the protrusion of Watanabe in the invention of Long because Watanabe teaches it prevents adhesive from adhering to the bonding tool (column 1, lines 44-48).
Pertaining to claim 9, Long (figures 1 & 5a) teaches a second plurality of switchable channels (right 115) in the main body 12, wherein the controller is configured to create vacuum in the first plurality of switchable channels (left 115) and the second plurality of switchable channels (right 115) simultaneously or create blowing in the first plurality of switchable channels (left 115) and the second plurality of switchable channels (right 115) simultaneously, wherein openings of the first plurality of switchable channels (left 115) form a first column of openings (left 115) along a first edge of the main body 12 in a bottom-up view, and wherein openings 113 of the second plurality of switchable channels (right 115) form a second column of openings (right 113) along a second edge of the main body 12 opposite to the first edge in the bottom- up view.
In claim 10, Long figures 1 & 5a) teaches a second plurality of vacuum channels (right 115) in the main body 12, wherein the controller is configured to create vacuum in the first plurality of vacuum channels (left 116) and the second plurality of vacuum channels (right 116) simultaneously, wherein openings of the first plurality of vacuum channels (left 116) form one or more columns of openings (left 114) between the first column of openings and the protrusion in the bottom-up view, and wherein openings (right 114) of the second plurality of vacuum channels (right 116) form one or more columns of openings (right 116) between the second column of openings (right 116) and the protrusion in the bottom-up view.
Regarding claim 11, Long (figures 1 & 5a) each of the first plurality of vacuum channels (left 114) has a same first diameter, wherein each of the first plurality of switchable channels (left 115) has a same second diameter, and though long fails to teach the first diameter is greater than the second diameter, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the relative diameter through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al., CN 116072560, in view of Ishimoto et al., US 12,444,625.
With respect to claim 21, Long (figures 1 & 5a) teaches a bonding apparatus, comprising:
a controller (the first pressure applying device and the second pressure applying device can independently control the application of the corresponding first/second channel internal pressure);
a vacuum pump (a gas pressure reducing mechanism, such as a vacuum pump);
a gas pressurizing mechanism, such as a pneumatic pump and so on and a gas valve communicatively coupled to the controller; and
a bonding head 1, wherein the bonding head 1 comprises:
a main body 12;
a first vacuum channel 116 in the main body 12, wherein the first vacuum channel 116 is connected to the vacuum pump; and
a first switchable (the second pressure applying device can be matched with the first pressure applying device to switch from the first working state to the second working state) channel 115 in the main body 12, wherein the first switchable channel 115 is connected to the vacuum pump through the second vacuum valve, and wherein the first switchable channel 115 is connected to the blower (the second pressure applying device can be matched with the first pressure applying device to switch from the first working state to the second working state).
Though Long fails to teach a first vacuum valve, and a second vacuum valve communicatively coupled to the controller; and a gas valve communicatively coupled to the controller, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use vacuum and gas valves in the invention of Long because it is conventionally known and used in the art that valves are what the controller controls in order to supply the vacuum and gas to the channels. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Long doesn’t teach gas pressurizing mechanism is a blower.
Ishimoto teaches applying pressure through the use of an air blow (column 3, line 62-column 4, line 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the blower of Ishimoto in the invention of Long because Ishimoto teaches a blower is a well known and used apparatus for applying pressure. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
As to claim 22, Long (figures 1 & 5a) teaches the first vacuum channel 116 has a first circular opening 114 in a bottom-up view and the first switchable channel 115 has a second circular opening 113 in the bottom-up view, and though Long fails to teach the first circular opening is larger than the second circular opening, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the relative diameter through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
In re claim 23, Long (figured 1 & 5a) teaches the first vacuum channel 116 has a first circular opening 114 in a bottom-up view and the first switchable channel 115 has a second circular opening 113 in the bottom-up view, and wherein the first circular opening 114 is as large as the second circular opening 113.
Concerning claim 24, Long (figures 1 & 5a) teaches the first switchable channel 115 is between a first sidewall of the main body 12 and the first vacuum channel 116.
Claim(s) 25-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al., CN 116072560, in view of Ishimoto et al., US 12,444,625, as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Watanabe et al., US 11,024,596.
Pertaining to claim 25, Long fails to teach a protrusion on a central portion of a bottom surface of the main body.
Watanabe (figure 3) teaches a protrusion 42 on a central portion of a bottom surface of the main body 40.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the protrusion of Watanabe in the invention of Long because Watanabe teaches it prevents adhesive from adhering to the bonding tool (column 1, lines 44-48).
In claim 26, Watanabe (figure 6) teaches a second vacuum channel 116 in the main body 12, wherein the protrusion 42 is between the first vacuum channel 52 and the second vacuum channel 54 in a bottom-up view, and wherein the second vacuum channel 54 is connected to the vacuum pump through the first vacuum valve.
Regarding claim 27, Long (figures 1 & 5a) teaches a second switchable channel (right 115) in the main body 12, wherein the second vacuum channel (right 115) is between the protrusion and the second switchable channel (right 115) in the bottom-up view, wherein the second switchable channel (right 115) is connected to the vacuum pump through the second vacuum valve, and wherein the second switchable channel (right 115) is connected to the blower (the second pressure applying device can be matched with the first pressure applying device to switch from the first working state to the second working state) through the gas valve.
With respect to claim 28, though Long may fail to teach the main body 12 has a first width, wherein the first vacuum channel is spaced apart from the second vacuum channel by a second width, and wherein the second width is greater than half of the first width, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the relative width through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 29, though Watanabe may fail to teach the protrusion has a third width, and wherein the third width is smaller than the second width, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the relative width through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art teach various aspects of the invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A ZARNEKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Matt Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/DAVID A ZARNEKE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891 5/11/26
Prosecution Insights