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 directed to the newly amended claims filed 6/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 1 are unpersuasive. Applicant argues that the Office Action ignores the structural relationship between the flattening side and the carrier, citing In re Gulack to assert that these features must be given patentable weight because the carrier’s components must physically extend through the openings of the flattening side.
However, the claimed apparatus is a carrier positioning device, not the carrier itself. In structural apparatus claims, a limitation that merely defines how the apparatus interacts with an external, unclaimed workpiece, such as the carrier, does not transform that external workpiece into a structural limitation of the claimed device. Under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, the structural limitation added to the claimed apparatus is simply a flattening side that comprises one or more openings. Whether the external workpiece being accommodated is called a carrier with electrical components or a wafer with elevations, the physical structure of the positioning apparatus itself—a support surface featuring openings to prevent interference from protrusions—remains structurally identical.
Furthermore, Applicant’s assertion that the reasoning of Kostler is not relevant to the claimed electrical components is without merit. Figure 1 of Kostler explicitly discloses a workpiece, specifically wafer 10, having protruding electrical structures 12a on its downward-facing surface. Kostler teaches providing corresponding recesses 3 in the support plate 2 to physically receive and accommodate these protruding structures 12a. The express purpose of this structural relationship in Kostler is to prevent the protruding structures from interfering with the flat, uniform contact between the wafer and the support plate, thereby preventing the wafer from lifting or experiencing spacing variations and gaps. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that whether the protruding structures on the supported substrate are characterized as wafer elevations, contacts, or electrical components, they present the exact same mechanical problem of planar interference. Providing corresponding openings or recesses in a support surface to accommodate such protrusions is a predictable, textbook mechanical solution to ensure flat, uniform contact. Therefore, modifying the flattening side of Verstreken to include openings to accommodate the protruding electrical components of the carrier as taught by Kostler yields nothing more than the predictable result of ensuring the carrier sits flat against the flattening side.
Prior Art of Record
The applicant's attention is directed to additional pertinent prior art cited in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited, which, however, may not be currently applied as a basis for the following rejections. While these references were considered during the examination of this application and are deemed relevant to the claimed subject matter, they are not presently being applied as a basis for rejection in this Office action. The pertinence of these documents, however, may be revisited, and they may be applied in subsequent Office actions, particularly in light of any amendments or further clarification of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
The term “well defined position” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term ”well defined position” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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) 1-3, 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verstreken et al. (US 20220130708 A1) in view of Kostler et al. (US 20030002973 A1).
CLAIM 1. Verstreken teaches a carrier positioning device for positioning a carrier (e.g. wafer/substrate), wherein the carrier comprises a first surface and a second surface, wherein the first surface comprises a first central region on which electrical components are to be arranged, and a first edge region adjacent to the first central region (The “carrier” is not understood to be part of the apparatus. The structure of the carrier is not understood to provide a structural distinction to the claimed “carrier positioning device. See MPEP §2114 for guidance.);
wherein the carrier positioning device comprises a flattening member 20 [e.g. “top plate”/chuck] having a flattening side, a flattening unit [e.g. vacuum] (Abstract – The top plate is a vacuum chuck where “negative pressure is applied from between a substrate disposed on the first side of the top plate through the through holes into the vacuum buffer, thereby flattening the substrate against at least part of the first side of the top plate”), and a first actuator 32a-b (¶45); wherein the flattening unit is configured to flatten the carrier with its second surface against the flattening side (Abstract – The top plate is a vacuum chuck where “negative pressure is applied from between a substrate disposed on the first side of the top plate through the through holes into the vacuum buffer, thereby flattening the substrate against at least part of the first side of the top plate”);
wherein the carrier positioning device further comprises an abutment member 70 having a flat abutment side, wherein the first actuator is configured to move the flattening member with the carrier on the flattening side so that the carrier is pressed with its first surface against the flat abutment side (¶45-53 – Actuator 32 has a lift pin use for lifting the plate 20, there by pressing the top plate to the clamps (e.g. “abutment member”.), wherein the abutment member is configured to leave an opening exposing the first central region when the carrier is in abutment with the flat abutment side to allow electrical components to be arranged on the first central region while the carrier is clamped between the abutment member and flattening member (Verstreken Fig. 6 and Abstract).
PNG
media_image1.png
504
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Verstreken teaches a carrier positioning device as described above, however may be silent upon wherein the carrier to be positioned comprises one or more electrical components arranged on the second surface thereof, and wherein the flattening side comprises one or more component accommodation openings through which the one or more electrical components arranged on the second surface of the carrier extend when the carrier is arranged on the flattening side.
At the time of the invention it was a known option to provide recesses in the surface of a vacuum chuck in order to accommodate surface structure on a wafer. As taught in figures 1, 2A and 2B of Kostler, providing recess where a wafer has elevations prevents the wafer “from lifting, and the wafer is now completely contacted by the wafer support region. “
PNG
media_image2.png
434
502
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Kostler explicitly discloses a workpiece, specifically wafer 10, having protruding electrical structures 12a on its downward-facing surface. Kostler teaches providing corresponding recesses 3 in the support plate 2 to physically receive and accommodate these protruding structures 12a. The express purpose of this structural relationship in Kostler is to prevent the protruding structures from interfering with the flat, uniform contact between the wafer and the support plate, thereby preventing the wafer from lifting or experiencing spacing variations and gaps. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that whether the protruding structures on the supported substrate are characterized as wafer elevations, contacts, or electrical components, they present the exact same mechanical problem of planar interference. Providing corresponding openings or recesses in a support surface to accommodate such protrusions is a predictable, textbook mechanical solution to ensure flat, uniform contact. Therefore, modifying the flattening side of Verstreken to include openings to accommodate the protruding electrical components of the carrier as taught by Kostler yields nothing more than the predictable result of ensuring the carrier sits flat against the flattening side.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the top plate of a vacuum chuck of to include accommodating recesses since applying a known technique (providing recesses) to a known device ready for improvement (a flat wafer chuck without recesses) to yield predictable results (prevent lifting or allowing a wafer with elevated features sit flat on a vacuum chuck top plate surface) is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
CLAIM 2. Verstreken teaches a carrier positioning device according to claim 1, wherein the abutment member has a well-defined position with respect to: a supporting floor, a stationary frame, or a well-defined constant position relative to an optical camera that is used for inspection, or any combination thereof. (Verstreken Fig. 6 and Abstract – This limitation simply encompasses that the abutment member simply resting on a floor, naturally meeting the functional need. Because terms like "well-defined" are subjective, the Verstreken device’s static resting position qualifies under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Furthermore, as recited in the claim, “ an optical camera” is not an active, claimed component of the device, failing to provide structural limitations.).
CLAIM 3. Verstreken teaches a carrier positioning device according to claim 1, wherein the flattening unit (vacuum chuck) is configured to flatten the carrier before the first actuator has moved the flattening member against the flat abutment side, or wherein the first actuator is configured to move the carrier against the flat abutment side thereby obtaining an initial flattening of the carrier before the flattening unit performs a further flattening of the carrier; and wherein the carrier positioning device comprises a controller for controlling the flattening unit and/or first actuator (Verstreken Fig. 6 and Abstract. The recited function and operational limitations fail to provide a structural distinction because the patentability of an apparatus claim must rest upon physical characteristics rather than its intended use or manner of operation. As noted MPEP 2114, prior art device that includes the claimed structural elements and is capable of performing the recited functions is sufficient to negate patentability.).
CLAIM 5. Verstreken in view of Kostler teaches a carrier positioning device according to claim 4, wherein the flattening unit comprises a vacuum unit; wherein the flattening side comprises one or more vacuum openings, and wherein the vacuum unit is configured to exert a suction force through the one or more vacuum openings of the flattening side to thereby flatten the carrier (Verstreken Fig. 6 and Abstract as modified by Kostler).
As addressed regarding claim 4, Verstreken however may be silent upon wherein the flattening side comprises one or more component accommodation openings through which the one or more electrical components arranged on the second surface of the carrier extend when the carrier is arranged on the flattening side.
At the time of the invention it was a known option to provide recesses in the surface of a vacuum chuck in order to accommodate surface structure on a wafer. As taught in figures 1, 2A and 2B of Kostler, providing recess where a wafer has elevations prevents the wafer “from lifting, and the wafer is now completely contacted by the wafer support region. “
PNG
media_image2.png
434
502
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the top plate of a vacuum chuck of to include accommodating recesses since applying a known technique (providing recesses) to a known device ready for improvement (a flat wafer chuck without recesses) to yield predictable results (prevent lifting or allowing a wafer with elevated features sit flat on a vacuum chuck top plate surface) is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
CLAIM 6. Verstreken in view of Kostler teaches a carrier positioning device according to claim 3, wherein at least some of the vacuum openings are component accommodation openings or at least some of the component accommodation openings are vacuum openings (Verstreken Fig. 6 and Abstract).
CLAIM 7. Verstreken in view of Kostler teaches a carrier positioning device according to claim 5, wherein the flattening member comprises a vacuum chamber of which a first wall defines the flattening side [e.g. vacuum chuck], wherein the one or more vacuum openings and the one or more component accommodation openings, are provided in the first wall, and wherein the vacuum unit is configured to evacuate the vacuum chamber (Verstreken Fig. 6 and Abstract as modified by Kostler).
Claim(s) 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verstreken (US 20220130708 A1) in view of Kostler et al. (US 20030002973 A1) in view of Sugisaki et al. (US 20230253234 A1)
CLAIM 8. Verstreken in view of Kostler et al. teach a carrier positioning device according to claim 5, however is silent upon wherein the flattening member comprises a bottom wall, a plurality of side walls extending from the bottom wall, and a plurality of posts extending from the bottom wall towards the flattening side, wherein the bottom wall and the plurality of side walls define a chamber together with the carrier when the carrier is arranged on the plurality of posts, and wherein the chamber is connected to the vacuum unit, and a clearance between the plurality of posts forms the one or more component accommodation openings of the flattening side. Verstreken teaches a vacuum chuck with openings, however as taught ins Sugisaki et al, alternative a vacuum chuck surface may be provided with a pluraility of post to provide a consistant vacuum over the surface. At the time of the invention, posts were a known and used functional alternative to holes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the vacuum means of Verstreken with post rather than holes as taught by Sugisaki, since simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
CLAIM 9. Verstreken in view of Kostler et al. in view of Sugisaki et al. teach a carrier positioning device according to claim 8, wherein the flattening member comprises a plurality of suction cups 80 mounted to the bottom wall, each of the suction cups providing a channel between an inlet opening and an outlet opening of the suction cup, wherein the outlet openings of the suction cups define the one or more vacuum openings, wherein the inlet openings are connected to the vacuum unit, and wherein the suction cups 80 are flexible in a direction from the bottom wall towards the flattening side so that prior to arranging the carrier on the plurality of posts, the outlet openings of the suction cups is positioned more remote from the bottom wall than ends of the plurality of posts, and so that during flattening the carrier, a length of the suction cups has contracted (Verstreken Fig. 6 and Abstract).
CLAIM 10. Verstreken in view of Kostler et al. in view of Sugisaki et al. teach a carrier positioning device according to claim 5, wherein the flattening member comprises a container having an open side and a porous body arranged in the container, wherein the porous body has a first side corresponding to the open side of the container forms the flattening side, wherein pores of the porous body exiting on the first side of the porous body form the one or more vacuum openings, and wherein the vacuum unit is configured to evacuate the pores of the porous body (Verstreken Fig. 6 and Abstract – Note: “porous body” does not define specific dimensional constraints. As such, the openings as provided in Verstreken meet the broad scope of the language.).
CLAIM 11. Verstreken in view of Kostler et al. in view of Sugisaki et al. teach a carrier positioning device according to claim 1, further comprising a pushing unit 32 configured to push the carrier towards the flattening side prior to flattening the carrier; and wherein the pushing unit comprises a resilient member 20 arranged fixedly relative to the abutment member 70, and wherein the resilient member is configured to be compressed by the carrier when the carrier is moved towards the abutment member (Verstreken Fig. 6 and Abstract).
CLAIM 12. Verstreken in view of Kostler et al. in view of Sugisaki et al. teach a carrier positioning device according to claim 1, wherein the flattening unit comprises: a pair of edge engaging members for engaging the edge of the carrier ; a second actuator for rotating the engaging members; wherein the flattening member comprises a base and a plurality of posts extending from the base to the flattening side; and wherein the second actuator is configured to cause the carrier to bulge towards the flattening side, and to then mutually move the carrier with the engaging members and the flattening member to bring the plurality of posts into abutment with the second surface of the carrier so that the carrier is flattened (Verstreken Fig. 6 and Abstract).
CLAIM 13. Verstreken in view of Kostler et al. in view of Sugisaki et al. teach a carrier positioning device according to claim 1, wherein the abutment member is movable in a plane parallel to the flattening side between a first position in which the carrier can be arranged on the flattening side, and a second position in which the carrier can be pressed against the abutment surface (Verstreken Fig. 6 and Abstract & ¶54 – The abutment member 70 as described in Verstreken ¶54 may be fixed or movable.).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verstreken (US 20220130708 A1) in view of Yeduru et al. (US 20210296176 A1)
CLAIM 14. Verstreken teaches a pick-and-place apparatus, comprising: the carrier positioning device according to claim 1, configured to position a carrier (e.g. Wafer/substrate). Verstreken is however silent upon a pick-and-place unit configured to pick an electrical component from a supply of electrical components and for placing the picked electrical component onto the first central region of the first surface of the carrier while the positioning device clamps the carrier between its abutment member and flattening member.
Yeduru demonstrates vacuum chucks were known to be used with pick and place systems for holding wafers during pick and placing electronic components to and from wafers. It would be It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Yeduru with the vacuum chuck of Verstreken, since simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
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 JARRETT J STARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6005. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
JARRETT J. STARK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2822
7/16/2026
/JARRETT J STARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights