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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-11, filed November 10, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-5 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are
persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. A new ground(s) of rejection is necessitated by the amendment. The deficiencies of Cheng in view of Kim in view of Dujari “maintaining a base plate at a predetermined temperature range, before loading any devices on the base plate to control expansion or contraction of the base plate to maintain a thickness of the base plate at a predetermined thickness; loading devices after the base plate is maintained at the predetermined temperature range and the predetermined thickness, on an upper surface of the base plate; suctioning after the devices are loaded on the upper surface of the base plate” are now met by Cheng in view of Anderson in view of Ogata. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. US 2006/0154386 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Cheng) in view of Anderson et al. WO 2010025231 A2 (hereinafter referred to as Anderson) in view of Ogata et al. JP 2007057444 A (hereinafter referred to as Ogata).
Regarding claim 1, Cheng discloses a method for aligning a device (fig. 1, elm. 12, par. [0023]) having a fine pitch (precise methods to align a plurality of semiconductor devices, par. [0056]), the method comprising: loading devices (fig. 2, holders comprising resilient holding surfaces in the form of resilient and flexible suction cups 13 mounted on the push block 12 for alignment of semiconductor devices 2, par. [0023]) the base plate (fig. 2, carrier 1, par. [0025]) having vacuum holes (fig. 1, flexible suction cups 13, par. [0023]) through each of a plurality of openings (fig. 2, pocket 3, par. [0025]) formed in a jig plate (fig. 3, top clamp 18, par. [0027]),the devices with vacuum pressure (fig. 6D, movement of the semiconductor devices 2 is facilitated by controlling the suction cup 13 vacuum to an appropriate level to reduce the sliding friction between the devices 2 and support surface 4 of the carrier 1, par. [0033]) that allows minute movement of the devices as the vacuum pressure is applied in a state in which the devices are loaded (fig. 7A, vacuum pressure of the suction cup 13 is controlled to an appropriate level, to reduce the sliding friction between the devices 2 and the support surface 4 of the carrier 1, par. [0033]-[0036]); and moving the base plate finely in X-Y-directions (X and Y directions and upwards, par. [0023]-[0024]) so as to align the devices by guiding each of the devices to two sides (fig. 3, guiding edges 19, 20, par. [0033]) of each of the openings while the vacuum pressure is applied to the devices on the upper surface of the base plate such that the devices loaded on the base plate are aligned (par. [0033]-[0036]).
Cheng does not disclose maintaining a base plate at a predetermined temperature range, before loading any devices on the base plate to control expansion or contraction of the base plate to maintain a thickness of the base plate at a predetermined thickness; loading devices after the base plate is maintained at the predetermined temperature range and the predetermined thickness, on an upper surface of the base plate; suctioning after the devices are loaded on the upper surface of the base plate.
Anderson discloses a base plate (fig. 15, elm. 1504, par. [0096]) at a predetermined temperature range (par. [0096]) at, before loading any devices (fig. 12,15, elm. 1206, par. [0094], [0096]) on the base plate (clm. 21) to control expansion or contraction of the base plate to maintain a thickness of the base plate at a predetermined thickness (par. [0096]); loading devices after the base plate is maintained at the predetermined temperature range and the predetermined thickness, on an upper surface of the base plate (see fig. 15, par. [0096]); suctioning after the devices (fig. 23, elem. 2302, par. [0093]-[0094]) are loaded on the upper surface of the base plate (fig. 23, elem. 2300, par. [0093]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tests a plurality of singulated die, the temperature of a die carrier and its die may need to be changed prior to testing the die that have been placed on the die carrier, the die carrier and die may be heated before or after placement of the die, as taught in Anderson in modifying the apparatus of Chang. The motivation would be thermal expansion of the die carrier or die can be factored into the registration, alignment or mapping of the die. (see Anderson: [par. [0096]).
Ogata discloses maintaining a base plate (fig. 14, elm. 231, par. [0062]) at a predetermined temperature range (par. [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an inspection apparatus to inspect at a predetermined temperature, and a temperature maintaining mechanism of such an inspection apparatus, as taught in Ogata in modifying the apparatus of Cheng and Anderson. The motivation would be to improve the precision of the substrate temperature in assignment before the inspection. (see Ogata: abs.).
Regarding claim 2, Cheng, Anderson and Ogata discloses the method of claim 1, Cheng discloses further comprising the step of suctioning the device with secondary pressure so as to prevent the movement of the device, after the alignment of the device is completed (after alignment, the vacuum pressure of the suction cups 13 can be controlled to fix the devices 2 firmly in the aligned position, so as to prevent dislocation of devices 2 in subsequent processing, par. [0038]).
Regarding claim 4, Cheng, Anderson and Ogata discloses the method of claim 1, Cheng discloses wherein after the jig plate (fig. 3, top clamp 18, par. [0027]) completes the alignment by correcting the positions of the devices (fig. 6D, elm. 2, par. [0034]), the device is spaced apart from the two sides of the opening and then the base plate is lowered (fig. 11B, carrier 1, par. [0051]-[0053]).
Regarding claim 6, Cheng, Anderson and Ogata discloses the method of claim 1, Ogata discloses further comprising: determining the base plate is in a state in which the base plate is maintained at the predetermined temperature range (par. [0061], [0071]).
The references are combined for the same reason already applied in the rejection of claim 1.
Anderson discloses loading, in response to the determination that the base plate is in the state in which the base plate is maintained at the predetermined temperature range, the devices on the upper surface of the base plate (clm. 21).
The references are combined for the same reason already applied in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Anderson in view of Ogata as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Sumi et al. JPH0714860A (hereinafter referred to as Sumi).
Regarding claim 3, Cheng, Anderson and Ogata discloses the method of claim 2, Cheng, Anderson and Ogata do not disclose wherein the secondary pressure is 50 – 100 mmHg.
Sumi discloses wherein the secondary pressure is 50 – 100 mmHg (par. [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a chip suction device wherein the suction vacuum can be finely adjusted approximately 50 to 500 mmHg, as taught in Sumi in modifying the apparatus of Cheng, Anderson and Ogata. The motivation would be prevent damage to a fragile element chip.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Anderson in view of Ogata as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Connolly US 7,902,477 B1.
Regarding claim 5, Cheng, Anderson and Ogata discloses the method of claim 1, Cheng, Anderson and Ogata do not disclose, wherein the devices are loaded sequentially on the upper surface of the base plate.
Connolly discloses the devices are loaded sequentially on the upper surface of the base plate (par. 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to sequentially loads ICs from a chip carrier into a test fixture of the test system, and when testing is completed, removes the IC from the text fixture, as taught in Connolly in modifying the method of Cheng, Anderson and Ogata. The motivation would be to ease of monitoring the process.
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 COURTNEY G MCDONNOUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm.
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, EMAN ALKAFAWI can be reached at (571) 272-4448. 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.
/COURTNEY G MCDONNOUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/EMAN A ALKAFAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
2/23/2026