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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/22/2026 and 09/01/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
An amendment filed on 08/10/2026 in response to the Office Action mailed on 06/08/2026 is being acknowledged and entered into the record. The present Non-Final rejection is made by taking into full consideration all the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-5 of the remarks, filed on 02/06/2026, with respect to the 112(b) rejection of Claims 1-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claims 1-14 has been withdrawn.
On page 6 of the remarks, filed on 02/06/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection of Claim 3, Applicant argues that neither the figures nor the accompanying description of Zou I discusses substrate surface non-uniformity, parallelism error, or selecting the height of the bonding agent bumps or electrode bonding pads to compensate for a distance difference between the donor substrate and the receiving substrate. Applicant further argues that, while Zou I discloses the presence of electrode bonding pads and bonding agent bumps , it does not describe a soft shell designed to have a height that is greater than a distance difference between the hard material bases of the pads on the system substrate and the microdevices on the donor substrate, as recited in Claim 1. These arguments are fully considered but are not persuasive. MPEP § 2111 discusses proper claim interpretation, including giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification during examination. Under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the words of a claim must be given their plain meaning unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification, and it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification into the claim. As such, the claim language of Claim 1 does not require the substrate to have surface non-uniformity and parallelism error. Furthermore, according to Fig. 5a of Zou I, the height of soft shell 4 is a finite length greater than zero and the distance between each of the bases 22 on the system substrate 2 and each of the microdevices 3 is constant throughout the length of the substrates and thus, the distance difference between the material bases 22 of the pads 22, 4 on the system substrate 2 and the microdevices 3 on the donor substrate 1 is zero. Therefore, Fig. 5a inherently teaches the height of soft shell 4 is greater than the above distance difference. Therefore, the rejection of Claim 1 and its dependents in view of Zou I/Zou II/LI is maintained.
On page 6 of the remarks, filed on 02/06/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection of Claim 1, Applicant argues that the rest of the cited references fails to disclose a soft shell designed to have a height that is greater than a distance difference between the hard material bases of the pads on the system substrate and the microdevices on the donor substrate, as recited in Claim 1. These arguments are fully considered but are not persuasive for the same reasons indicated above. Therefore, the rejection of Claim 1 and its dependents in view of Zou I/Zou II/LI is maintained.
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.
Rejection note: Italicized claim limitations are limitations not explicitly disclosed in the primary
reference but disclosed in the secondary reference(s).
Claims 3-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou et al. (US 20200075560 A1), herein referred to as Zou I, in view of second reference Zou et al. (US 20170330857 A1), herein referred to as Zou II, and LI et al. (US 20220230587 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Zou I teaches a method to transfer microdevices the method comprising:
forming a buffer layer on a donor substrate 1 (see annotated Fig. 5a: 1, paragraph 0039);
having microdevices 3 located on a top of the buffer layer (see annotated Fig. 5a: 3, 1, paragraph 0039);
having a system substrate 2 with transferred microdevices 3 on pads 22, 4, with the pads 22,4 having a hard material base 22 and a soft shell 4 (see annotated Fig. 5a: 2, 3, 22, 4, paragraph 0039, 0040);
Note that the material 4 of the pads 22,4 is a conductive adhesive (see paragraph 0040), which is the same material disclosed by the Applicant for the pads (see paragraph 0021 of originally filed disclosure).
having other pads 22,4 consisting of the hard material base 22 and the soft shell 4 on the system substrate 2 without microdevices 3 (see annotated Fig. 5a: 2, 3, 22, 4);
and bringing the donor 1 and system substrate 2 closer such that selected microdevices 3 to be transferred are close to associated pads 22, 4 on the system substrate 2 (see annotated Fig. 5a: 2, 3, 22, 4),
wherein the soft shell 4 is designed to have a height that is greater than a distance difference between the hard material bases 22 of the pads 22, 4 on the system substrate 2 and the microdevices 3 on the donor substrate 1 (see Fig. 5a: .
Note that according to Fig. 5a of Zou I, the height of soft shell 4 is a finite length greater than zero and the distance between each of the bases 22 on the system substrate 2 and each of the microdevices 3 is constant throughout the length of the substrates and thus, the distance difference between the material bases 22 of the pads 22, 4 on the system substrate 2 and the microdevices 3 on the donor substrate 1 is zero. Therefore, Fig. 5a inherently teaches the height of soft shell 4 is greater than the above distance difference. Zou II teaches a method to transfer microdevices the method comprising the following limitation not disclosed in Zou I,
forming a buffer layer 305 on a donor substrate 306, having microdevices 302 located on a top of the buffer layer 305 (see Fig. 6E: 302, 305, 306, paragraph 0128).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Zou I and Zou II in order to form a buffer layer on the donor substrate and have the microdevices located on a top of the buffer layer. Doing so would enable the microdevices to be temporarily bonded to the donor substrate through the barrier layer, as recognized by Zou II (paragraph 0128).
LI et al. teaches a method to transfer microdevices, comprising the following limitation not disclosed in Zou I,
wherein the pads 1250 are made of a hard material base (i.e., gold, palladium or indium, see Fig. 19: 1250, paragraph 0134).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Zou I and LI et al. in order to have the pads have a hard material base. Doing so would ensure the pads are not deformed or damaged during the transfer of the microdevices.
PNG
media_image1.png
546
1431
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5a of Zou I (US 20200075560 A1)
Regarding Claim 4, Zou II teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the buffer layer 305 is formed by a patterning or an etching process and is a polymer, a dielectric or a metal (paragraph 0128, 0130).
Note that the buffer layer is formed of a resist, which is a well-known polymer material.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Zou I and LI et al. teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the soft shell 4 of the pad 22, 4 covers only a top surface of the hard material base 22 or at least one sidewall of the hard material base 22 (see annotated Fig. 5a of Zou I: 22, 4).
Regarding Claim 6, Zou I teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the soft shell 4 is one of indium or a soft adhesive (as taught by Zou I, see paragraph 0040), and the combination of Zou I and LI et al. teaches wherein the hard material base 22 is one of Al, Gold, or dielectric such as silicon oxide or silicon nitride, or polymers such as BCB, SU8 (see annotated Fig. 5a of Zou I: 22, and paragraph 0134 of LI et al.).
Regarding Claim 8, Zou I fails to teach the method of claim 5, wherein electrodes are formed to connect the pads to the system substrate.
However, Zou II teaches wherein electrodes 205 are formed to connect the pads 205’ to the system substrate 204 (see Fig. 4A: 205, 205’, 204, paragraph 0094).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Zou I and Zou II in order to have electrodes formed to connect the pads to the system substrate. Doing so would establish electrical connection between the microdevices and the system substrate, as recognized by Zou II (paragraph 0094).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou I (US 20200075560 A1), in view of second reference Zou II (US 20170330857 A1), and LI et al. (US 20220230587 A1), as applied to Claim 3 above, further in view of Zhang et al. (US 20190305069 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Zou I, Zou II, and LI et al. fails to teach the method of claim 3, wherein a post is developed on the system substrate such that it touches the donor substrate during the transfer eliminating damages on the pads, microdevices and system substrate.
However, Zhang et al. teaches a method to transfer microdevices, wherein a post 525A is developed on the system substrate 520 (Fig. 5I: 520, 525A, paragraph 0079).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Zou I and Zhang et al. in order to have a post developed on the system substrate such that it touches the donor substrate during a transfer eliminating damages on the pads, microdevices and system substrate. Doing so would eliminate damages on the pads and microdevices.
Zhang et al. does not explicitly teach such that the post touches the donor substrate during a transfer eliminating damages on the pads, microdevices and system substrate. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that when the post of Zhang et al. are developed on the system substrate of Zou I, the posts will touch the donor substrate during a transfer eliminating damages on the pads, microdevices and system substrate.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou I (US 20200075560 A1), in view of Zou II (US 20170330857 A1) and LI et al. (US 20220230587 A1), further in view of Zhang et al. (US 20190305069 A1), as applied to Claim 7 above, further in view of Chaji et al. (US 20190096774 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Zou I, Zou II, Wang et al., Li et al. and Zhang et al. fails to teach the method of claim 7, wherein posts are also formed on the donor substrate.
However, Chaji et al. teaches a method to transfer microdevices, wherein posts 132 are formed on the donor substrate 110 (Fig. 1E: 132, 110, paragraph 0072).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Zou I and Chaji et al. in order to have posts also formed on the donor substrate. Doing so would enable the posts to serve as spacers, thereby minimizing damage to the microdevices during transfer.
Regarding Claim 10, Zhang et al. teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the posts 525A are made of metals or dielectric or polymer (paragraph 0012, 0019).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou I (US 20200075560 A1), in view of in view of Zou II (US 20170330857 A1), as applied to Claim 3 above, further in view of Bibl et al. (US 20190259907 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Zou I and Zou II fails to teach the method of claim 3, wherein an electrode is extended over top of a stage and a pad is formed on top of the electrode.
However, Bibl et al. teaches a method to transfer microdevices, wherein an electrode 210 is extended over top of a stage 202 (Fig. 4: 210, 202, paragraph 0049).
Note that the posts 202 are interpreted as the stage and the contact pads 210 are interpreted as the electrode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Zou I and Bibl et al. in order to have an electrode extended over top of a stage. Doing so would increase the gap between the donor and system substrates, thereby preventing damage to the pads and microdevices during transfer.
While Bibl et al. fails to explicitly teach the pad is formed on top of the electrode, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that when the electrode/stage of Bibl et al. is disposed on the system substrate of Zou I, the pads can be formed on top of the electrode.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Zou I, Zou II and Bibl et al. fails to explicitly teach the method of claim 11, wherein a gap between donor substrate and system substrate increases by a height of the stage during transfer. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that when the stage of Bibl et al. is disposed on the system substrate of Zou I, a gap between donor substrate and system substrate increases by a height of the stage during transfer (since the stage of Bibl et al. would come in between the donor and system substrates, the gap between the two substrates will be inevitably increased by a distance equivalent to the height of the stage).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou I (US 20200075560 A1), in view of Zou II (US 20170330857 A1), as applied to Claim 3 above, further in view of Bibl et al. (US 20190259907 A1) and Zhang et al. (US 20190305069 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Zou I, Zou II fails to explicitly teach the method of claim 3, wherein there is a post on top of a stage and the pads are formed on top of an electrode.
However, Zhang et al. teaches a method to transfer microdevices, wherein there is a post 525A on top of a stage 523 (Fig. 5I: 523, 525A, paragraph 0079).
Note that the metal film 523 of Fig. 5I is interpreted as the stage.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Zou I and Zhang et al. in order to have a post on top of a stage. Doing so would eliminate damages on the pads, microdevices and system substrate during transfer.
Furthermore, Bibl et al. teaches a method to transfer microdevices, wherein an electrode 210 is extended over top of a stage 202 (Fig. 4: 210, 202, paragraph 0049). Further, the combination of Bibl et al. and Zou I suggests wherein the pads are formed on top of an electrode (see rejection of Claim 11 above).
Note that the posts 202 in Fig. 4 of Bibl et al. are interpreted as the stage and the contact pads 210 in Fig. 4 of Bibl et al. are interpreted as the electrode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Zou I and Bibl et al. in order to have the pads formed on top of an electrode. Doing so would increase the gap between the donor and system substrates, thereby preventing damage to the pads and microdevices during transfer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMNA F IQBAL whose telephone number is (571)272-1587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8.30 am - 5.30 pm EST.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at 571-272-5055. 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.
/HAMNA FATHIMA IQBAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2817 09/13/2026
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights