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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 13, 2026 has been entered.
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 1-7 and 9-13 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 resilient plate including a first surface configured to be oriented toward the semiconductor chip and a second surface opposite to the first surface of the resilient plate” in Lines 11-13. It is unclear whether the second surface is merely included in the resilient plate or if the second surface is included in the “oriented towards” limitation. Appropriate correction required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/ Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 9, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (KR 101385443 B1), or alternatively, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 101385443 B1) in view of (KR 101542819 B1).
(Claim 1) Lee discloses a collet (1) for pickup of a semiconductor chip from a film including the semiconductor chip and a peripheral semiconductor chip. The collet includes: a collet head (100) defining a recess (Fig. 1), the recess including a first surface (120) configured to be oriented toward the semiconductor chip (Figs. 1-5); a base (200) on the first surface of the recess (Figs. 1-5), the base including a first surface capable of being oriented toward the semiconductor chip and a second surface opposite to the first surface of the base (Figs. 1-5); a holder (320 protruding portion in center of 300) configured to fix the semiconductor chip to a first surface of the holder using vacuum (Translation); and a resilient plate (310) on the first surface of the base (200), the resilient plate including a first surface configured to be oriented toward the semiconductor chip and a second surface opposite to the first surface of the resilient plate (Figs. 1-5). The first surface of the base includes a central portion covered by the holder and an edge portion uncovered by the holder (Figs. 1-5). The holder and the base are configured such that a peripheral space defined by the edge portion and a plane defined by the first surface of the holder is configured to accommodate at least a portion of the peripheral semiconductor chip facing the edge portion while the semiconductor chip is fixed to the first surface of the holder (Figs. 1-5). A thickness of the recess of the collet head is greater than a vertical distance between the first surface of the resilient plate and the second surface of the base (Figs. 1-5). Because the vertical distance is not explicitly claimed as to how it is measured, the vertical distance may be a distance merely between the two surfaces recited but not from one surface to the other surface. As such, the Lee reference reads upon the claimed invention.
In the alternative, KR 101542819 B1 (‘819) discloses a collet head (110) defining a recess (114; Fig. 1), the recess including a first surface configured to be oriented toward the semiconductor chip (Figs. 1, 3-5); and a thickness of the recess (from first surface of base to tip of 113) of the collet head is greater than a vertical distance between the first surface of the resilient plate (121) and the second surface of the base (123). At a time prior to filing, it would have been obvious to modify/provide the collet head disclosed in Lee with recess walls that extend further (or have a greater depth) than the combination of the base and the resilient plate as suggested by the ‘819 patent in order to yield the predictable result of positioning/retaining the base and holder relative to the collet head and/or as a simple substitution of one known element for another leading to the predictable result of positioning/retaining the base and holder relative to the collet head. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (reciting several exemplary rationales that may support a finding of obviousness).
(Claim 2) The base (200) includes a plurality of first vacuum holes (211, 211’) to which the vacuum is provided (Figs. 1, 3-5; Translation).
(Claim 3) The base (200) includes metal (Translation disclosing steel).
(Claim 4) The holder (320) includes a plurality of second vacuum holes (311, 311’) connected to the first vacuum holes (Figs. 1, 3-5) and, as best understood, exposed through the first surface of the holder (Figs. 1-5).
(Claim 9) The holder (320) includes a resilient material (translation disclosing rubber or silicon).
(Claim 12) The resilient plate (310) includes a material the same as a material of the holder (Translation discloses that 300 includes rubber or silicon such that both 310 and central portion 320 are of the same material).
(Claim 13) The resilient plate is integrally formed with the holder (310+320 makes up 300).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 101385443 B1) in view of Oh (US Patent No. 7,793,408 B2), or alternatively, over Lee (KR 101385443 B1) in view of (KR 101542819 B1) further in view of Oh (US Patent No. 7,793,408 B2).
Lee does not explicitly disclose the first surface of the holder further including a vacuum groove connecting the second vacuum holes with each other.
Oh discloses a first surface of a holder (230) having a vacuum groove (236) connecting second vacuum holes (234) with each other (Fig. 5). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the collet disclosed in Lee with a groove connecting the second vacuum holes in the first surface as suggested by Oh in order to increase the suction surface area as is well known in the art, the fact of which examiner takes official notice and/or as improving a device in a known manner to gain the predictable result of a suction groove. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (reciting several exemplary rationales that may support a finding of obviousness).
Claims 6, 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 101385443 B1), or alternatively, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 101385443 B1) in view of (KR 101542819 B1).
(Claims 6 and 7) Lee does not explicitly disclose a trapezoidal cross-sectional shape of the holder as claimed with the second surface thereof having a greater surface area than the first surface thereof. Nevertheless, at a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the holder disclosed in Lee to have a trapezoidal cross-sectional shape of the holder as claimed with the second surface thereof having a greater surface area than the first surface thereof as a matter of design choice. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1966) (holding that the configuration of the claimed device was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed device was significant).
(Claim 11) The vertical distance is recited as merely being between two surfaces, but not measured from one to the other. Nevertheless, Lee does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the resilient plate relative to the vertical distance between the first surface of the base and the first surface of the holder. Yet, the thickness of the resilient plate is a result-effective variable because it impacts the weight and clearance of the collet, the facts of which examiner took official notice as being well-known in the art. Because Applicant failed to traverse the well-known in the art assertion, the fact is taken as admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03 C. As such, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious at the time of filing to provide the collet disclosed in Lee with a resilient plate thickness within the claimed range in order to optimize the weight and clearance of the resilient plate. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 101385443 B1) in view of Nakagawa et al. (US Patent No. 12,342,367 B2) or Kumamoto (JP 2014-200888 A), or alternatively, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 101385443 B1) in view of (KR 101542819 B1) further in view Nakagawa et al. (US Patent No. 12,342,467 B2) or Kumamoto (JP 2014-200888 A).
In the alternative to the modification of Lee without further references, a rejection including modifying references shall be made. Lee does not explicitly disclose a trapezoidal cross-sectional shape of the holder as claimed with the second surface thereof having a greater surface area than the first surface thereof.
Nakagawa et al. discloses a trapezoidal cross-sectional shape of the holder as claimed with the second surface thereof having a greater surface area than the first surface thereof (Figs. 8c, 8e; Col. 26, Lines 25-29; Col. 27, Lines 48-54). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the holder disclosed in Lee to have a trapezoidal cross-sectional shape of the holder as claimed with the second surface thereof having a greater surface area than the first surface thereof as suggested by Nakagawa et al. because “by making the cross sectional shape of the second step a trapezoid in this event, durability is improved when transfer motions are repeatedly employed, so that the life of the convex-shaped projection can be extended.” (Col. 26, Lines 25-29).
Kumamoto discloses a trapezoidal cross-sectional shape of the holder as claimed with the second surface thereof having a greater surface area than the first surface thereof (Figs. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8; Translation relative to identified Figures). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the holder disclosed in Lee to have a trapezoidal cross-sectional shape of the holder as claimed with the second surface thereof having a greater surface area than the first surface thereof as suggested by Kumamoto in order to provide a positive retention clamping force on the holder (Translation Page 9).
Claims 14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 101385443 B1) in view of Oh (US Patent No. 7,793,408 B2), or alternatively, over Lee (KR 101385443 B1) in view of Oh (US Patent No. 7,793,408 B2) and (KR 101542819 B1).
(Claim 14) Lee discloses a collet (1) for pickup of a semiconductor chip from a film including the semiconductor chip and a peripheral semiconductor chip. The collet includes: a collet head (100) defining a recess (Fig. 1), the recess including a first surface (120) configured to be oriented toward the semiconductor chip (Figs. 1-5); a base (200) on the first surface of the recess (Figs. 1-5), the base (200) including a first surface capable of being oriented toward the semiconductor chip and a second surface opposite to the first surface (Figs. 1-5), the base (200) includes a plurality of first vacuum holes (211, 211’) to which the vacuum is provided (Figs. 1, 3-5; Translation), the first surface including a central portion and an edge portion surrounding the central portion (Figs. 1-5); and a holder (320 protruding portion in center of 300) on the central portion of the first surface of the base such that the edge portion is uncovered by the holder (Figs. 1-5), the holder (320) includes a plurality of second vacuum holes (311, 311’) connected to the first vacuum holes (Figs. 1, 3-5) and intersecting with the first surface of the holder (Figs. 1-5). The holder is capable of fixing the semiconductor chip to a first surface (320) of the holder using vacuum (Translation). A resilient plate (310) is disposed on the edge portion of the first surface of the base (Figs. 1-5). The holder and the base are configured such that a peripheral space defined by the edge portion and a plane defined by the first surface of the holder is configured to accommodate at least a portion of the peripheral semiconductor chip facing the edge portion while the semiconductor chip is fixed to the first surface of the holder (Figs. 1-5). A thickness of the recess of the collet head is greater than a vertical distance between the first surface of the resilient plate and the second surface of the base (Figs. 1-5). Because the vertical distance is not explicitly claimed as to how it is measured, the vertical distance may be a distance merely between the two surfaces recited but not from one surface to the other surface. As such, the Lee reference reads upon the claimed invention.
The vertical distance is recited as merely being between two surfaces, but not measured from one to the other. Nevertheless, Lee does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the resilient plate relative to the vertical distance between the first surface of the base and the first surface of the holder. Yet, the thickness of the resilient plate is a result-effective variable because it impacts the weight and clearance of the collet, the facts of which examiner took official notice as being well-known in the art. Because Applicant failed to traverse the well-known in the art assertion, the fact is taken as admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03 C. As such, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious at the time of filing to provide the collet disclosed in Lee with a resilient plate thickness within the claimed range in order to optimize the weight and clearance of the resilient plate. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”).
Lee does not explicitly disclose the first surface of the holder further including a vacuum groove connecting the second vacuum holes with each other.
Oh discloses a first surface of a holder (230) having a vacuum groove (236) connecting second vacuum holes (234) with each other (Fig. 5). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the collet disclosed in Lee with a groove connecting the second vacuum holes in the first surface as suggested by Oh in order to increase the suction surface area as is well known in the art, the fact of which examiner takes official notice and/or as improving a device in a known manner to gain the predictable result of a suction groove. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (reciting several exemplary rationales that may support a finding of obviousness).
In the alternative to the vertical distance interpretation above, KR 101542819 B1 (‘819) discloses a collet head (110) defining a recess (114; Fig. 1), the recess including a first surface configured to be oriented toward the semiconductor chip (Figs. 1, 3-5); and a thickness of the recess (from first surface of base to tip of 113) of the collet head is greater than a vertical distance between the first surface of the resilient plate (121) and the second surface of the base (123). At a time prior to filing, it would have been obvious to modify/provide the collet head disclosed in Lee with recess walls that extend further (or have a greater depth) than the combination of the base and the resilient plate as suggested by the ‘819 patent in order to yield the predictable result of positioning/retaining the base and holder relative to the collet head and/or as a simple substitution of one known element for another leading to the predictable result of positioning/retaining the base and holder relative to the collet head. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (reciting several exemplary rationales that may support a finding of obviousness).
(Claim 18) The holder (320) includes a resilient material (translation disclosing rubber or silicon).
(Claim 19) The resilient plate (310) includes a material the same as a material of the holder (Translation discloses that 300 includes rubber or silicon such that both 310 and central portion 320 are of the same material).
(Claim 20) The resilient plate is integrally formed with the holder (310+320 makes up 300).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 101385443 B1) in view of Oh (US Patent No. 7,793,408 B2), or alternatively, over Lee (KR 101385443 B1) in view of Oh (US Patent No. 7,793,408 B2) and (KR 101542819 B1).
Lee does not explicitly disclose a trapezoidal cross-sectional shape of the holder as claimed with the second surface thereof having a greater surface area than the first surface thereof. Nevertheless, at a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the holder disclosed in Lee to have a trapezoidal cross-sectional shape of the holder as claimed with the second surface thereof having a greater surface area than the first surface thereof as a matter of design choice. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1966) (holding that the configuration of the claimed device was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed device was significant).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 101385443 B1) in view of Oh (US Patent No. 7,793,408 B2) further in view Nakagawa et al. (US Patent No. 12,342,467 B2) or Kumamoto (JP 2014-200888 A), or alternatively, over Lee (KR 101385443 B1) in view of Oh (US Patent No. 7,793,408 B2) and (KR 101542819 B1) further in view Nakagawa et al. (US Patent No. 12,342,467 B2) or Kumamoto (JP 2014-200888 A).
In the alternative to the modification of Lee without further references, a rejection including modifying references shall be made. Lee does not explicitly disclose a trapezoidal cross-sectional shape of the holder as claimed with the second surface thereof having a greater surface area than the first surface thereof.
Nakagawa et al. discloses a trapezoidal cross-sectional shape of the holder as claimed with the second surface thereof having a greater surface area than the first surface thereof (Figs. 8c, 8e; Col. 26, Lines 25-29; Col. 27, Lines 48-54). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the holder disclosed in Lee to have a trapezoidal cross-sectional shape of the holder as claimed with the second surface thereof having a greater surface area than the first surface thereof as suggested by Nakagawa et al. because “by making the cross sectional shape of the second step a trapezoid in this event, durability is improved when transfer motions are repeatedly employed, so that the life of the convex-shaped projection can be extended.” (Col. 26, Lines 25-29).
Kumamoto discloses a trapezoidal cross-sectional shape of the holder as claimed with the second surface thereof having a greater surface area than the first surface thereof (Figs. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8; Translation relative to identified Figures). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the holder disclosed in Lee to have a trapezoidal cross-sectional shape of the holder as claimed with the second surface thereof having a greater surface area than the first surface thereof as suggested by Kumamoto in order to provide a positive retention clamping force on the holder (Translation Page 9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 13, 2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Trinks (WO 2011/089201 A1); Han (KR 101577958 B1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN RUFO whose telephone number is (571)272-4604. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Singh Sunil can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/RYAN RUFO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights