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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 40 and 43 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 40, line 1 delete “UV” and insert therein - - ultraviolet (UV) - - to define the initialism; and similarly in claim 43, line 2 delete “IR” and insert therein - - infrared (IR) - -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a high-throughput low-precision system configured to pick said group of dies from said source substrate and placed onto an intermediate substrate” in claim 27 (the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification such as in Paragraphs 00214-00215); and
“a parallel high-precision system configured to assemble said group of dies from said intermediate substrate onto said product substrate” in claim 27 (the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification such as in Paragraphs 00206, 00214, and 00229).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
It is further noted under claim interpretation the “parallel high-precision system” of claim 27 is interpreted wherein the relative term “high-precision” is in relation to the term “low-precision” in “high-throughput low-precision system” in that the “parallel high-precision system” is more precise/capable of a higher precision than the “high-throughput low-precision system” and further “high-throughput” interpreted (in view of paragraphs 00214-00215) as the ability to pick up more than one die in one shot.
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 27-46 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 27 recites the limitation “said placement of said group of dies” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “said placement of said group of dies” in both claim 27, line 8 and claim 28, line 1 and insert therein - - said assembly of said group of dies - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 27 recites the limitation “wherein a precision of assembly onto said product substrate is sub-500 nm”. It is unclear what is the “precision of assembly” and what is “sub-500 nm” with respect to? It is unclear how the term “precision” is intended to be interpreted (see further the definition of “precision” from thefreedictionary.com). One of ordinary skill in the scientific art often understands the term “precision” as the ability of a measurement to be consistently reproduced. Claim 27 does not set forth a repeated assembly of groups of dies for repeated measurements. The term “precision” may also be understood as accuracy/exactness so that “precision of assembly” may be interpreted as accuracy/exactness of assembly however it is unclear what is the accuracy/exactness with respect to, i.e. what is sub-500 nm with respect to for example to the SiP pitch or to the pitch or another parameter of each die in the group of dies or to repeated assembly of groups of dies onto the product substrate? Because as claimed the assembly of the group of dies onto the product substrate is performed at the SiP pitch using the parallel high-precision system the precision of assembly onto the product substrate appears to be an accuracy/exactness with respect to the SiP pitch so that the limitation appears directed to the assembled pitch of each die of the group of dies from the SiP pitch is sub-500 nm. It is suggested to insert - - for each die from said SiP pitch - - after “wherein a precision of assembly onto said product substrate is sub-500 nm” to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination. If this is not how applicants intend the limitation to be interpreted applicants should clarify what is the “precision of assembly” and what is “sub-500 nm” with respect to in order to overcome this rejection.
Claim 39 recites the limitation “wherein a deformability of said adhesive is reduced after a fine alignment step on said intermediate substrate”. Claim 40 recites the limitation “wherein a UV curing step is utilized to reduce a deformability of said adhesive”. The claims are directed a system considered the apparatus/machine statutory class of invention. These limitations are directed to the materials or articles worked upon by the system and/or functional limitations (see MPEP 2114 and 2115 as more fully discussed below). The limitations “a fine alignment step” and “a UV curing step” are unclear and confusing as none of the claims expressly and positively set forth particular structure of the system used to carry out “a fine alignment step” and “a UV curing step”. If applicants intend structure of the claimed system to perform such steps such structure should be expressly and positively claimed to overcome this rejection. If applicants do not intend structure of the claimed system to perform such steps applicants should clarify what is structurally required by the limitations as further limiting the system (such as that the limitations require the claimed structure of the system capable of use with other unclaimed structure or by hand for performing such steps) to overcome this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 27-31, 33, 35-41, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0272935).
Regarding claim 27, Wang (Figures 3-5 and 7 and Paragraphs 0009, 0016, and 0024-0033) discloses a system capable of for assembling a group of first materials or articles worked upon (chips 502) from a second material or article worked upon (wafer 500) onto a third material or article worked upon (substrate 700), comprising (it being noted comprising is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps see MPEP 2111.03): a high-throughput low-precision system (comprising carrier substrate 504 picking the group of first materials or articles worked upon in one shot, i.e. high-throughput, and considered the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof of a transfer chuck and/or pick-and-place picking up one or more dies in one shot see paragraphs 00214-00215) configured to pick the group of first materials or articles worked upon (502) from the second material or article worked upon (500) and placed onto a fourth material or article worked upon (substrate 508) (see 520-522 of Figure 5), wherein the placement of the group of first materials or articles worked upon onto the fourth material or article worked upon is performed at a pitch; and a parallel high-precision system (of a transfer chuck comprising an apparatus 300 comprising a group of transfer elements 304 and considered a group of die chucks and substrate 512 and considered a substrate-die chuck and considered the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof of a transfer chuck including a substate-die chuck and an array of short-stroke stages or including an array of die flippers or including a group of die chucks, see claims 32, 33, 41 and Paragraphs 00206, 00214, and 00229, and further the parallel high-precision system taught by Wang is capable of removal and replacement of mispositioned first materials or articles worked upon and capable of adjusting the positions of the first materials or articles worked upon including pitch prior to placement onto the third material or article worked upon, paragraphs 0028-0030, and thus more precise than the high-throughput low precision system not having such capability) configured to assemble the group of first materials or articles worked upon (502) from the fourth material or article worked upon (508) onto the third material or article worked upon (700) (see 523 and 524 of Figure 5 and Figure 7 and including the apparatus 300 comprising a group of transfer elements 304 configured to transfer the first group of materials or articles worked upon from the fourth material or article worked upon 508 to the substrate 512 at a pitch which may be changed or not wherein substrate 512 is then configured to flip and assemble the group of first materials or articles worked upon onto the third material or article worked upon 700 at the pitch), wherein the assembly/placement of the group of first materials or articles worked upon onto the third material or article worked upon is performed at a pitch.
As to the limitations in claim 27 of “for assembling a group of dies from a source substrate onto a product substrate”, “configured to pick said group of dies from said source substrate and placed onto an intermediate substrate”, and “configured to assemble said group of dies from said intermediate substrate onto said product substrate”, the claims are directed a system considered the apparatus/machine statutory class of invention. These limitations are directed to the materials or articles worked upon by the system and/or functional limitations. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements, and thus, inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed (i.e. the group of dies, the source substrate, the intermediate substrate, and the product substrate) does not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP 2115). Further, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on (see MPEP 2114). Wang teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim as set forth above which structure is capable of “for assembling a group of dies from a source substrate onto a product substrate”, “configured to pick said group of dies from said source substrate and placed onto an intermediate substrate”, and “configured to assemble said group of dies from said intermediate substrate onto said product substrate” wherein the system is operated with a group of dies as the group of first materials or articles worked upon (502), a source substrate as the second material or article worked upon (500), an intermediate substrate as the fourth material or article worked upon (508), and a product substrate as the third material or article worked upon (700).
As to the limitations in claim 27 of “wherein said placement of said group of dies onto said intermediate substrate is performed such that one or more of X and Y pitch of said placed group of dies matches a corresponding system-in-package (SiP) pitch” and “wherein said placement of said group of dies onto said product substrate is performed at said SiP pitch, wherein a precision of assembly onto said product substrate is sub-500 nm” and claims 35 and 36, as noted above the claims are directed a system considered the apparatus/machine statutory class of invention wherein these limitations are directed to the materials or articles worked upon by the system and functional limitations. Wang teaches placement of the group of first materials or articles worked upon (such as a group of dies) onto the fourth material or article worked upon (such as an intermediate substrate) is performed at one or more of an X and Y pitch (see Figure 5). Wang further teaches assembly/placement of the group of first materials or articles worked upon (such as the group of dies) onto the third material or article worked upon (such as a product substrate) is performed at a pitch which may be changed or not (Paragraph 0029 and see further Figures 5 and 7). Wang teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim as set forth above which structure is capable of “wherein said placement of said group of dies onto said intermediate substrate is performed such that one or more of X and Y pitch of said placed group of dies matches a corresponding system-in-package (SiP) pitch” and “wherein said placement of said group of dies onto said product substrate is performed at said SiP pitch, wherein a precision of assembly onto said product substrate is sub-500 nm” at least wherein the pitch is unchanged, i.e. wherein the placement of the group of dies (as the first materials or articles worked upon) onto the intermediate substrate (as the fourth material or article worked upon) is performed such that one or more of X and Y pitch of the placed group of dies matches a corresponding system-in-package (SiP) pitch (a corresponding SiP pitch is as claimed not any particular pitch but is any desired pitch such as for example the final resulting pitch of the group of dies on the product substrate is a corresponding SiP pitch) and wherein the placement of the group of dies onto the product substrate (as the third material or article worked upon) is performed at the SiP pitch, wherein a precision of assembly onto the product substrate is sub-500 nm (and regarding claim 35 a precision of assembly onto the product substrate is sub-200 nm and regarding claim 36 a precision of assembly onto the product substrate is sub-100 nm) for each die from the SiP pitch (the limitation is rejected herein in as much as it is currently understood see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above) such as when the pitch is unchanged and considered a precision of assembly onto the product substrate is 0 nm for each die from the SiP pitch.
In the event it is somehow considered Wang does not necessarily anticipate the limitation “wherein a precision of assembly onto said product substrate is sub-500 nm” and claims 35 and 36 as set forth above the following rejection is made. Wang teaches the assembling is while maintaining high position registration (Paragraph 0009) and including the parallel high-precision system capable of changing the pitch or not (Paragraph 0028) to achieve an intended pitch on the third material or article worked upon so that it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the system taught by Wang has a precision of assembly onto the product substrate (as the third material or article worked upon) is sub-500 nm (and sub-200 nm and sub-100 nm) such as 0 nm for each die from the SiP pitch (as the intended pitch on the third material or article worked upon) as the assembling taught by Wang maintains high precision with capability of changing the pitch or not to achieve an intended pitch on the product substrate.
Regarding claims 28-31 and 37-40, as noted above the claims are directed a system considered the apparatus/machine statutory class of invention wherein these limitations are directed to the materials or articles worked upon by the system (i.e. the adhesive) and/or functional limitations. Wang teaches all of the structural limitations of the claims as set forth above which structure is capable of regarding claim 28 “wherein said placement of the group of dies onto said product substrate utilizes one or more of the following: fusion, hybrid, and direct bonding” such as wherein as the group of first materials or articles worked upon is a group of dies comprising tack, i.e. utilizes one or more of fusion, hybrid, and direct bonding, and/or as the third material or article worked upon is a product substrate comprising tack, i.e. utilizes one or more of fusion, hybrid, and direct bonding (it being further noted for clarity of the record Wang teaches the assembly/placement of the group of first materials or articles worked upon onto the third material or article worked upon utilizes at least fusion, Paragraph 0034). Wang teaches all of the structural limitations of the claims as set forth above which structure is capable of regarding claim 29 “wherein said placement of said group of dies onto said intermediate substrate utilizes one or more of the following: fusion and adhesive bonding” such as wherein as the group of first materials or articles worked upon is a group of dies comprising adhesive, i.e. utilizes adhesive bonding, and/or as the fourth material or article worked upon is an intermediate substrate comprising adhesive, i.e. utilizes adhesive bonding (it being further noted for clarity of the record Wang teaches the placement of the group of first materials or articles worked upon onto the fourth material or article worked upon utilizes at least adhesive bonding, Paragraph 0026). Wang teaches all of the structural limitations of the claims as set forth above which structure is capable of regarding claim 30 “wherein said group of dies comprises 9 or more dies” wherein as the group of first materials or articles worked upon is 9 or more dies (it being further noted for clarity of the record the group of first materials or articles worked upon taught by Wang includes 9 or more see Figure 1). Wang teaches all of the structural limitations of the claims as set forth above which structure is capable of regarding claim 31 “wherein said intermediate substrate is a tape frame” wherein as the fourth material or article worked upon is a tape frame (it being further noted for clarity of the record Wang teaches the fourth material or article worked upon is an adhesive coated substrate, Paragraph 0026). Wang teaches all of the structural limitations of the claims as set forth above which structure is capable of regarding claim 37 “wherein an adhesive in liquid form is used to secure said group of dies in a vicinity of their final position on said intermediate substrate using self-assembly principles” wherein the group of dies as the group of first materials or articles worked upon and/or the intermediate substrate as the fourth material or article worked upon further comprise an adhesive in liquid form thereon as a fifth material or article worked upon so that the adhesive then between the group of dies and the intermediate substrate is used to secure the group of dies in a vicinity of their final position on the intermediate substrate using self-assembly principles (such as spreading/flowing of the liquid) (it being further noted for clarity of the record Wang teaches an adhesive, as a fifth material or article worked upon, is used to secure the group of first materials or articles worked upon in a vicinity of their final position on the fourth material or article worked upon, Paragraph 0034). Wang teaches all of the structural limitations of the claims as set forth above which structure is capable of regarding claim 38 “wherein a deformable solid or gel-type adhesive is used to secure said group of dies in a vicinity of their final position on said intermediate substrate” wherein the group of dies as the group of first materials or articles worked upon and/or the intermediate substrate as the fourth material or article worked upon further comprise a deformable solid or gel-type adhesive as a fifth material or article worked upon thereon so that the adhesive then between the group of dies and the intermediate substrate is used to secure the group of dies in a vicinity of their final position on the intermediate substrate (it being further noted for clarity of the record Wang teaches a soft, gel-type adhesive, as a fifth material or article worked upon, is used to secure the group of first materials or articles worked upon in a vicinity of their final position on the fourth material or article worked upon, Paragraph 0034). Wang teaches all of the structural limitations of the claims as set forth above which structure is capable of regarding claim 39 “wherein a deformability of said adhesive is reduced after a fine alignment step on said intermediate substrate” and regarding claim 40 “wherein a UV curing step is utilized to reduce a deformability of said adhesive” wherein as the adhesive thereon, as the fifth material or article worked upon, is a UV curable adhesive cured after a fine alignment step such as removal and replacement of mispositioned die(s) and/or adjusting the positions of the die(s) using the parallel high-precision system wherein UV light is applied by a UV light of the system taught by Wang (system includes structure for application of ultraviolet light see Paragraph 0036) or the system taught by Wang is capable of use with other structure for performing the step (the limitations of claims 39 and 40 rejected in as much as they are currently understood see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above). If applicants intend the structure of the claimed system to comprise any particular structure to perform any of the limitations in claims 28-31 and 37-40 other than the structure of the claimed system is capable of such limitations as set forth above such particular structure must be expressly and positively claimed.
Regarding claim 33, the parallel high-precision system taught by Wang utilizes a flipper (substrate 512) for flipping an array of chips (first materials or articles worked upon) and considered an integrated array of die flippers (each structure of the substrate for flipping each chip considered a die flipper wherein each flipper is integrated into a whole and forming an integrated array of die flippers) for parallel flip-chip assembly.
Regarding claim 41, Wang teaches an apparatus (300) comprising a group of transfer elements (304) and considered a group of die chucks (i.e. Wang teaches all of the structural limitations of the claims and) is capable of being used to hold the group of dies as the group of first materials or articles worked upon (objects 314 as chips 502) in a thermo-mechanically stable manner (see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 46, Wang teaches the group of transfer elements, i.e. die chucks, is provided with at least control signals (inputs 310 see Figure 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 27-31, 33, 35-44, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Kress (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0153735) and/or Hwang et al. (U.S. Patent 6,352,402).
Regarding claim 42, Wang is described above in full detail. Wang teaches the group of die chucks (transfer elements 304) onto a support plate (substrate 302). Wang does not expressly teach the group of die chucks is clamped onto the support plate. Wang is silent as to how the group of die chucks remains onto the support plate. Wang further teaches the pitch of the group of die chucks may vary (Paragraph 0020) and the system is capable of changing the pitch of the first group of materials or articles worked upon (Paragraph 0029) without expressly describing the structure to vary the pitch of the group of die chucks. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the pitch of a group of die chucks (vacuum tips 12 taught by Kress and/or picker bodies 20 taught by Hwang) by the group of die chucks are clamped (via blocks 42 of Kress and/or blocks 18 of Hwang) onto a guide rail (guide rail 9 of Kress and/or guide rail 14 of Hwang) on a support plate (frame 2 of Kress and/or picker base 10 of Hwang) as evidenced by Kress (Figures 1, 4, and 5 and Paragraphs 0007, 0035, 0044, and 0045) including to improve positioning precision including to virtually any pitch within the total range of adjustment as expressly taught by Kress (Paragraph 0044-0045) and/or Hwang (Figure 1 and Column 1, lines 5-13 and Column 2, lines 20-27 and Column 3, lines 24-35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the group of die chucks of the parallel high-precision system as taught by Wang is clamped onto a rail on the support plate to conventionally and predictably provide for varying the pitch of the group of die chucks (and therefore further capable of changing the pitch of the first group of materials or articles worked upon) as is well understood in the art as evidenced by Kress and/or Hwang and consistent with that taught by Wang.
Regarding claim 43, the support plate taught by Wang is composed of a material such as glass (Paragraph 0020) and considered (or as would have been at least prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as the conventional and predictable properties of glass) transparent in one or more of the following: ultraviolet (UV), visible, and infrared (IR) wavelengths.
Regarding claim 44, the support plate taught by Wang is composed of silicon carbide a scratch resistant layer (Paragraph 0020) (silicon carbide scratch resistant including as expressly disclosed in the instant specification see paragraph 00166).
Regarding claims 27-31, 33, 35-41, and 46, Wang is described above in full detail (see paragraph 16) regarding claims 27-31, 33, 35-41, and 46 not repeated here for brevity.
As to the limitation in claim 27 of “wherein a precision of assembly onto said product substrate is sub-500 nm” and claims 35 and 36, Wang is considered to anticipate or make prima obvious the limitation as set forth above. In the event it is somehow considered Wang does not necessarily anticipate or make prima obvious alone the limitation Wang as modified by Kress and/or Hwang above regarding claim 42 (i.e. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the group of die chucks of the parallel high-precision system as taught by Wang is clamped onto a rail on the support plate to conventionally and predictably provide for varying the pitch of the group of die chucks (and therefore further capable of changing the pitch of the first group of materials or articles worked upon) as is well understood in the art as evidenced by Kress and/or Hwang and consistent with that taught by Wang) is applied to claims 27-31, 33, 35-41, and 46 herein wherein as the parallel high-precision system taught by Wang as modified by Kress and/or Hwang expressly and positively allows to vary the pitch of the group of first materials or articles worked upon by varying the pitch of the group of die chucks along the rail for improved positioning precision including to virtually any pitch within the total range of adjustment Wang as modified by Kress and/or Hwang is further capable of by adjustment of the pitch of the group of die chucks along the rail a precision of assembly onto the product substrate (as the third material or article worked upon) is 0 nm for each die (as the first material or article worked upon) from the SiP pitch.
Claims 42 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Sreenivasan et al. (WO 2018/119451).
Regarding claims 42 and 45, Wang is described above in full detail. Wang teaches the group of die chucks (transfer elements 304) onto a support plate (substrate 302). Wang does not expressly teach the group of die chucks is clamped onto the support plate. Wang is silent as to how the group of die chucks remains onto the support plate. It is known in the same art a pick-and-place layer (1801, 1802 and analogous to the group of die chucks of Wang) is clamped onto a support plate (layer 1803) using a vacuum manifold (1805) as taught by Sreenivasan (Figure 18 and Paragraph 00111). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the group of die chucks taught by Wang is clamped onto the support plate using vacuum suction from a vacuum manifold to conventionally and predictably hold the group of die chucks onto the support plate as is known in the art as evidenced by Sreenivasan.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32 and 34 would be allowable if rewritten as suggested above to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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:
The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a system for assembling a group of dies from a source substrate onto a product substrate as claimed and including wherein the parallel high-precision system utilizes an architecture with oppositely oriented intermediate and product substrates, wherein a substrate-scale die chuck picks dies from the intermediate substrate and subsequently transfers them to an array of short-stroke stages which subsequently places the dies onto the product substrate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN L GOFF II whose telephone number is (571)272-1216. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST Monday - Friday.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/JOHN L GOFF II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746