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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I which corresponds to claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 6/17/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Inventions or Species.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/08/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 3 and 10-15 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.
Regarding Claim 3, the cited limitation “to change a current pick-up direction to one of the first direction, the second direction, and a third direction.” The first and second directions are defined in claim 1. “A third direction” is undefined in the claim. The specification appears to contemplate additional patterns (e.g. zigzag or other non-radial sequences), but the claim itself provides no metes and bounds. A person of ordinary skill would not know with reasonable certainty what constitutes that third direction. Therefore it is indefinite.
Regarding Claim 10, the cited limitation “ based on an interacting relationship between the pick-up direction and the arrangement direction.”, “interacting relationship” is not a recognized term of art, is not defined in the claim, and no criterion is recited by which one could determine whether a give selection is or is not made on that basis. Any two directions selected by a common controller bear some relationship to one another. The claim therefore fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of the limitation with reasonable certainty. Therefore it is indefinite.
Claims 11-15 depend from claim 10 therefore they are rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 12, the cited limitation “a second-up direction” has no antecedent basis and is not a recognized term; it appears to be a typographical error for “second direction.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwong et.al. (US-2025/0140586-A1, hereinafter Kwong), in view of Moore et.al. (US-2008/0014073-A1, hereinafter Moore) and further in view of Mimura (US-2009/0024242-A1, hereinafter Mimura)
PNG
media_image1.png
663
517
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1.
Kwong teaches in Fig.5 A chip sorting device (#200) comprising:
a wafer stage (#204/#202) configured to load a wafer comprising a plurality of light emitting diode (LED) chips on the wafer stage;
a film stage (#206/#208) configured to load a film on the film stage;
a pick-up unit (#214) configured to place, on the film loaded on the film stage (#208), one or more of the plurality of LED chips loaded on the wafer stage (#202) ([0041-0044]); and
Kwong does not explicitly disclose a controller configured to control the pick-up unit to sequentially pick up the plurality of LED chips from the wafer stage in a first direction from a center portion of the wafer towards an edge portion of the wafer or a second direction from the edge portion of the wafer towards the center portion of the wafer.
Moore teaches a controller configured to control the pick-up unit. ([0044])
Mimura teaches in Fig.13, 15 and 19 a controller (#201) for pick up sequencing including both in a first direction from a center portion of the wafer towards an edge portion of the wafer or a second direction from the edge portion of the wafer towards the center portion of the wafer. (See Mimura Fig.13, 15 and 19 [0094-0112])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kwong’s device with the teachings of Moore and Mimura, as identified above, to use a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way and the combined method yield predictable results. Therefore Kwong modified by Moore and Mimura teaches the claimed limitation “a controller configured to control the pick-up unit to sequentially pick up the plurality of LED chips from the wafer stage in a first direction from a center portion of the wafer towards an edge portion of the wafer or a second direction from the edge portion of the wafer towards the center portion of the wafer.’
Regarding Claim 2.
Kwong modified by Moore and Mimura teaches The chip sorting device of claim 1,
Kwong further teaches wherein the pick-up unit is further configured to pick up the plurality of LED chips based on a vacuum force applied to the plurality of LED chips.([0044] The vacuum or air inlet 272 passes through the pusher 290 and the body 282 and supplies a suction or releasing force at the tip 280.)
Regarding Claim 5.
Kwong modified by Moore and Mimura teaches The chip sorting device of claim 1,
Kwong further teaches in Fig.5 further comprising a vision unit (#218 inspection unit) configured to check whether each of the plurality of LED chips satisfies a criteria. ([0044])
Regarding Claim 6.
Kwong modified by Moore and Mimura teaches The chip sorting device of claim 5,
Kwong further teaches wherein the pick-up unit is further configured to rotate in a direction along the wafer stage, the vision unit, and the film stage. (Fig.2 [0037] [0041] [0054])
Regarding Claim 7.
Kwong modified by Moore and Mimura teaches The chip sorting device of claim 1, Kwong further teaches wherein the pick-up unit comprises:
a plurality of pick-up heads configured to pick up the plurality of LED chips loaded on the wafer stage; and a plurality of rotating members configured to rotate the plurality of pick-up heads. ([0043-0044] Fig.6-7)
Regarding Claim 8.
Kwong modified by Moore and Mimura teaches The chip sorting device of claim 7, Kwong further teaches wherein the plurality of rotating members are radially arranged, and wherein each of the plurality of pick-up heads is provided at an end of each of the plurality of rotating members. ([0044] Fig.4,6,7A)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwong et.al. (US-2025/0140586-A1, hereinafter Kwong), in view of Moore et.al. (US-2008/0014073-A1, hereinafter Moore) and further in view of Mimura (US-2009/0024242-A1, hereinafter Mimura) and Wu et.al. (US-20210057396A1, hereinafter Wu)
Regarding Claim 9.
Kwong modified by Moore and Mimura teaches The chip sorting device of claim 1,
Kwong modified by Moore and Mimura does not explicitly disclose wherein the pick-up unit is further configured to sequentially arrange the plurality of LED chips on the film in a direction from a first end of the film to a second end of the film.
Wu disclose in Fig.6 and in related text wherein the pick-up unit is further configured to sequentially arrange the plurality of LED chips on the film in a direction from a first end of the film to a second end of the film. (see Wu [0027] Fig.6 the predetermined arrangement manner includes a vertical turn-back arrangement manner O2, and of course, it may also be a horizontal turn-back arrangement manner.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kwong, Moore and Mimura, with the teachings of Wu, as identified above, because a determinate arrangement pattern on the receiving film is required so that the downstream packaging the assembly operations produce the intended distribution of chips in the finished display.
Claims 10 and 13-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwong et.al. (US-2025/0140586-A1, hereinafter Kwong), in view of Moore et.al. (US-2008/0014073-A1, hereinafter Moore) and Wu et.al. (US-20210057396A1, hereinafter Wu)
Regarding Claim 10.
Kwong teaches A chip sorting device comprising:
a wafer stage configured to load a wafer comprising a plurality of light emitting diode (LED) chips on the wafer stage;
a film stage configured to load a film on the film stage;
a pick-up unit configured to place, on the film loaded on the film stage, one or more of the plurality of LED chips loaded on the wafer stage; and
Kwong does not explicitly disclose a controller configured to select a pick-up direction in which the plurality of LED chips are picked up from the wafer stage and an arrangement direction in which the plurality of LED chips are placed on the film based on an interacting relationship between the pick-up direction and the arrangement direction.
Moore teaches a controller configured to select a pick-up direction in which the plurality of LED chips are picked up from the wafer stage and an arrangement direction. ([0044])
Wu teaches in Fig.5-6 about picking direction O1 and the predetermined arrangement manner. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “selection a pick-up direction … and an arrangement direction …. based on an interacting relationship” encompasses coordinating the source-side traversal direction with the destination-side placement direction so that the order in which chips are picked produces the selected arrangement pattern. Wu’s sequential correspondence between the predetermined pick-up sequence and the predetermined vertical or horizontal placement sequence teaches such coordinated relationship.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Kwong, with the teachings of Moore and Wu, as identified above, in order to produce Wu’s desired scattered and even LED distribution, thereby reducing striped or block-like brightness and color differences. The modification would have involved applying known technique to improve a similar device in the same way and the combined method yield predictable results
Regarding Claim 13.
Kwong modified by Moore and Wu teaches The chip sorting device of claim 10,
Wu further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to control the pick-up unit to pick up the plurality of LED chips a clockwise direction or a counterclockwise direction from the wafer. (See Wu Fig.5 claim 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kwong, Moore and Wu, with the teachings of Wu, as identified above, in order to permit implementation of the desired chip-selection sequence and this modification would produce the predictable result.
Regarding Claim 14.
Kwong modified by Moore and Wu teaches The chip sorting device of claim 10,
Kwong further teaches in Fig.5 further comprising a vision unit (#218 inspection unit) configured to check whether each of the plurality of LED chips satisfies a criteria. ([0044])
Regarding Claim 15.
Kwong modified by Moore and Wu teaches The chip sorting device of claim 14,
Kwong further teaches wherein the pick-up unit is further configured to rotate in a direction along the wafer stage, the vision unit, and the film stage. (Fig.2 [0037] [0041] [0054])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 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.
Claims 11-12 are rejected, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Claim 4 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art, either singly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious, the device, wherein … the controller is further configured to control the pick-up unit to pick up the plurality of LED chips a clockwise direction or a counterclockwise direction from the wafer. These features in combination with the other elements of the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Claim 11 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art, either singly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious, the device, wherein … select, as the arrangement direction, a first arrangement direction from a first end of the film having a first thickness to a second end of the film having a second thickness greater than the first thickness. These features in combination with the other elements of the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Claim 12 contains allowable subject matter because they depend from claim 11 .
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA W KAO whose telephone number is (703)756-4797. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Pacific Time.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571) 272-7925. 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.
/SOPHIA W KAO/Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/RATISHA MEHTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights