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 with traverse of Group I, Species I (Fig. 2), Sub-species (Fig. 3a) claims 43-50 in the reply filed on 07/16/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) of unity of invention which are not found persuasive. The method of group II can be done manually without a movement device. The prior art of Van et al (US 2022/0216087 A1) talk about light and the set up can be moved manually under the light to transfer and release the chips. Also the claims directed towards apparatus (i.e. Group I) require a search in different CPC symbols. Therefore, since the claims of Group I and Group II require two separate searches in two separate fields, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Furthermore for the species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different subclasses or electronic resources or non patent language, or deploying different search queries); and/or the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species; and/or the species are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a movement device” in claim 43 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 43-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 43 recites in lines 8, 10 “the lifting element” has antecedent issues which should be “the light-conducting lifting element”.
Claim 43 in line 12 recites “after a transfer, release the connection through the transfer material again by the second laser pulse” but previously in line 10 defines the transfer material was melted which makes the claim unclear. Does the second laser pulse work on the already melted transfer material by the first laser pulse or the second laser pulse melts the transfer material again after solidifying in between applying first and second laser pulses? Appropriate correction is required.
Clam 43 recites “after a transfer” is indefinite as it is not clear what it transfer or where it transfer. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 44-50 are also rejected being dependent on rejected claim 43.
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 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 of this title, 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 43-46, 48-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Van et al (US 2022/0216087 A1) in view of Xu et al (CN 206632522 U).
Regarding claim 43: Van teaches in Fig. 1A-1D about a transfer arrangement comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
787
990
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a light generating device configured to generate a first laser light pulse and a second laser light pulse (as shown);
a light-conducting lifting element comprising a light emitting surface; and
a movement device which configured to:
move the light emitting surface of the light-conducting lifting element above a transfer area (upper surface of the component or portion of 20a where component get attached) of a component (11,12,13), and
move the lifting element in a vertical direction;
wherein the transfer arrangement is configured to:
connect the component to the lifting element 20 by a transfer material 20a melted by the first laser pulse in the transfer area [0027], and
after a transfer (Fig. 1C), release the connection through the transfer material again by the second laser pulse (Fig. 1D).
Van doesn’t explicitly show about a light generating device, a light-conducting lifting element comprising a light emitting surface, a movement device which configured to:
move the light emitting surface of the light-conducting lifting element.
Xu teaches in Fig. 1-2 about a light generating device 5, a light-conducting lifting element (51 +52+53+54) comprising a light emitting surface 55 (including a transfer material 56), a movement device 4 which configured to:
move the light emitting surface of the light-conducting lifting element.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify Van’s transfer arrangement’s light generating section to use a laser light generating device including a transfer material to weld the transfer material on a surface of a component according to the teachings of Xu and thereby to have better automation, accurate positioning and make connection in real time (Xu, abstract).
Regarding claim 44: Van teaches in [0033] wherein a duration of the first laser light pulse and/or the second laser light pulse is in a range from 1 ns to 500 ns ([0033] teaches short pulse of less than 1 ms).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have the feature as claimed with routine experiment and optimization since using shorter pulsed may cause a sufficiently fast temperature rise before the heat has time to dissipate
according to the teaching of Van ([0033]). In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding claim 45: Xu teaches in Fig. 1-2 wherein an area of the light emitting surface is in a range of less than 75% of an area of the transfer area (the tip 55/56 is smaller than the surface of circuit board where the welding happens.
Regarding claim 46: Van teaches in Fig. 1B-1C wherein the transfer arrangement is configured to exert a force on the transfer area during generation of the first light pulse from the light-conducting lifting element (light would melt 20a to attach element 11 and would exert a force to separate from substrate 10).
Regarding claim 48: Xu teaches in Fig. 2 wherein a tip of the light-conducting lifting element comprises one of the following shapes: a hemispherical tip, a conical tip, a con-shaped tip, or an inwardly curved recess.
Regarding claim 49: Xu teaches in Fig. 2 wherein the light emitting surface is covered with the transfer material 56.
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Van et al (US 2022/0216087 A1) in view of Xu et al (CN 206632522 U) and further in view of Fukuoka et al. (JP 11103159 A)
Regarding claim 47: Van in view of Xu teaches a command and control circuit 4 connected to the one or more sensors and the movement device configured to control vertical movement in response to signals from the one or more sensors.
Van in view of Xu does not explicitly talk about further comprising: one or more sensors configured to detect a distance between a deposition area and the light emitting surface or values derived therefrom.
Fukuoka teaches in abstract about a sensor which detects the relative distance between a body part in the approach direction to the board and the movement part is provided.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have the feature as claimed in Van’s arrangement according to the teachings of Fukuoka and thereby to control the movement with high accuracy (Fukuoka, abstract).
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Van et al (US 2022/0216087 A1) in view of Xu et al (CN 206632522 U) and further in view of Bataresh et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0048967 A1)
Regarding claim 50: Van in view if Xu does not explicitly talk about further comprising a transfer material reservoir configured to supply the transfer material to the light emitting surface.
However to get solder material 56 in Xu’s device there would be a source reservoir to supply 56 and Bataresh teaches in [0033] about purging medium of liquid supply with the laser beam using a fiber optic cable.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have the feature as claimed in Van’s arrangement according to the teachings of Xu and Bataresh and thereby to have supply of melting/transfer material as necessary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED SHAMSUZZAMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 am -4 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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at 571-272-1867. 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.
/Mohammed Shamsuzzaman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights