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 .
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.
Invitation for and Examiner Interview
If upon review Applicant believes anything contained herein is incorrect or unclear Examiner encourages Applicant to schedule a telephonic interview.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6-9, 11, 12, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maki (US20090170290A1).
In reference to claim 1:
Maki discloses a separation device (abstract, Fig. 25), comprising:
a pin cover (Fig. 24 numeral 13) having an action platform (Fig. 24 top horizontal surface of numeral 13) and an accommodating space for an object to be separated to be placed on the action platform (Fig. 15-26 showing an “accommodating space” for placement of an object to be separated), wherein the action platform is defined with an active region (Fig. 24 zone under center chip 1) and an idle region (Fig. 24 zone under leftmost chip 1), the active region is provided with a plurality of first apertures (Fig. 25 numeral 31), and the plurality of first apertures penetrate through the action platform and communicate with the accommodating space (Fig. 25 numeral 31);
an ejector pin plate disposed in the accommodating space (Figs. 24-26 numeral 15);
a plurality of ejector pins disposed on the ejector pin plate and corresponding to positions of the plurality of first apertures (Figs. 24-26); and
a plurality of bumps disposed in the idle region of the action platform of the pin cover (Figs. 11 and 24 showing the “bumps” separating the concentric slots 31. It is noted that Fig. 24 has mislabeled the slots as 30 and the suctions holes as 31 while Fig. 11 and para 0099 have the identifiers reversed),
wherein the idle region is provided with a plurality of second apertures, and the plurality of second apertures penetrate through the action platform and communicate with the accommodating space (Figs. 14a-14b and 24-26 in view of para 0102 disclosing the number of needs is increased or decreased in accordance with the size of each chip. As such, for a smaller chip, with fewer required needles, the outermost through holes of Fig. 24 would meet the claimed “plurality of second apertures” in the idle region).
In reference to claim 3:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Maki further discloses wherein the active region is located at a center of the action platform, and the idle region is located around the active region (Fig. 11).
In reference to claim 4:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Maki further discloses wherein the ejector pin plate is defined with a first connection region and a second connection region, wherein the first connection region and the second connection region are parallel to the action platform, and the plurality of ejector pins are disposed in the first connection region of the ejector pin plate (Fig. 14b showing the “first connection region” where the needles 16 are positioned and the “second connection region” as the exterior portions without needles 16, Figs. 18 and 24 showing the regions are parallel with the action platform).
In reference to claim 6:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Maki further discloses wherein the plurality of bumps and the pin cover are integrally formed (Fig. 24 showing the sides of element 13 as a solid piece with the “bumps” on the upper surface).
In reference to claim 7:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Maki further discloses wherein the object to be separated includes an adhesive film (para 0105, Fig. 18 pressure-sensitive adhesive applied to the dicing tape 5) and a chip module disposed on the adhesive film (Fig. 18 chip 1), and the separation device is used to separate the adhesive film and the chip module (Fig. 19).
In reference to claims 8 and 9:
In addition to the discussion of claim 7, above, Maki further discloses wherein the chip module is defined with a first region and a second region, the first region is located at a center of the chip module, the second region is located around the first region, the first region is provided with a first chip, and the second region is provided with a second chip (para 0102 and Fig. 18, applies to claim 8) and wherein the first region of the chip module is located corresponding to the active region of the pin cover, and the second region of the chip module is located corresponding to the idle region of the pin cover (para 0102 and Fig. 18, applies to claim 9).
Additionally, while the Examiner has indicated Maki meets the claimed limitations “[e]xpressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” See In re Young, 75 F.2d *>996<, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)) (see MPEP § 2115).
In reference to claim 11:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Maki further discloses wherein the object to be separated is fixed on the pin cover by vacuum suction (para 0099).
In reference to claim 12:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Maki further discloses wherein the ejector pin plate moves toward the pin cover, so that the plurality of ejector pins pass through the plurality of first apertures and press against the object to be separated (Figs. 18-19 and 25-26).
In reference to claim 14:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Maki further discloses ejector blocks disposed on the ejector pin plate (para 0121, Fig. 25).
In reference to claim 16:
In addition to the discussion of claim 14, above, Maki further discloses wherein the ejector blocks are further provided with the plurality of bumps (para 0121, Fig. 28). As the exterior blocks 27 are connected the blocks meet the claimed “bumps” as the “block” connected the bumps 27 meets the claimed “blocks”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maki as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Tan (CN115440632A).
In reference to claim 5:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Maki does not disclose wherein the bumps are cones. However, this is taught by Tan. Tan teaches a device for separating a device from a carrying film (para 0009, Fig. 1). Tan further teaches that supporting the device and film using cones reduces the contact area and is more conducive to separation (para 0056). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the separation device of Maki with the cones of Tan in order to obtain a device which is more conducive to separation of the device from the film.
In reference to claim 13:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Maki does not disclose wherein a contact area between the bumps and the object to be separated is smaller than a contact area between the ejector pins and the object to be separated. However, this is taught by Tan. Tan teaches a device for separating a device from a carrying film (para 0009, Fig. 1). Tan further teaches that supporting the device and film using cones reduces the contact area and is more conducive to separation (para 0056). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the separation device of Maki with the cones of Tan with a minimal contact area in order to obtain a device which is more conducive to separation of the device from the film.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maki.
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Maki further discloses wherein the number of needles 16 can be increased or decreased in accordance with the size of the chips to be picked up (para 0102) but does not explicitly disclose wherein a distribution region of the active region of the pin cover accounts for 60% of a distribution area of the action platform of the pin cover (See para 0028 of Applicant’s specification as published disclosing that the “distribution region” is the first region 221 and Fig. 1A showing the first region 221 corresponds to the chip to be picked up). It is the Examiner’s first position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a device “wherein a distribution region of the active region of the pin cover accounts for 60% of a distribution area of the action platform of the pin cover” in order to accommodate a chip of such dimension. It is the Examiner’s second position that changing the relative dimensions would not cause the device to perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maki as applied to claim 14, above, and further in view of Huang (TWI803445B).
In addition to the discussion of claim 14, above, Maki fails to disclose wherein the idle region of the pin cover is provided with openings connected to the accommodating space, and the ejector blocks correspond to positions of the openings. However, this would have been obvious in view of Huang. Huang teaches a device for chip separation (para 0001). Huang further discloses utilizing multiple, repeating peeling areas improves efficiency of transfer operations (pg 3 last 3 lines through pg 4 line 3, Fig. 8 shown on page 2 of the original document). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Maki with the multiple, repeating peeling areas of Huang in order to obtain a device with improved transfer efficiency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that Maki does not disclose, teach, or suggest “the idle region is provided with a plurality of second apertures, and the plurality of second apertures penetrate through the action platform and communicate with the accommodating space” as required of amended claim 1 (page 5 last paragraph). Applicant further this argument by comparing Fig. 1B of the instant application with Fig. 25 of Maki, specifically that the instant Fig. 1B provides for second apertures within the idle region to generate a downward suction force while Fig. 25 of Maki discloses a chucking element provided with a plurality of concentric slots for the needles to penetrate through rather than a plurality of second apertures communicating with the accommodating space (pg 4 last paragraph through pg 5 last paragraph).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. During prosecution the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111. As currently written, the debated limitations of the claims of the instant application require an active region provided with a plurality of first apertures penetrating through the action platform and communicate with the accommodating space, ejector pins disposed on an ejector pin plate corresponding to positions of the plurality of first apertures, and an idle region provided with a plurality of second apertures penetrating through the action platform and communicate with the accommodating space. The claims contain no limitation that the plurality of second apertures cannot accommodate pins when necessary, as disclosed by Maki (see para 0102). Additionally, each of the through holes 30 are disclosed as suction holes for allowing the tips of needles to project from the upper surface of the chucking element (para 0099). Maki explicitly teaches increasing or decreasing the number of needles in needle holder 20 in accordance with the size of each chip to be picked up (para 0102). This needle holder forms an underlying portion of pickup unit 15 of Figs. 16 and 25 (See Figs. 13-14 showing pickup unit 15 and needle holder 20 having different numbers of pins based on the chip size) and would have reduced needles for smaller chip sizes (see Figs. 14(a) and 14(b)). As the smaller chip of 14(b) requires 6 needles while the larger chip of Fig. 14(a) requires 8, separation of a chip smaller than that in Fig. 16 or Fig. 25 would also require fewer than the shown 6 needles while the now unused holes in chucking element 13 would meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “second apertures” of the “idle region”.
Applicant next argues that the prior Office Action has not made a prima facie case of obvious regarding claim 10 in that the claimed dimensional relationship has not been established as a result-effective variable or a mere matter of routine optimization and that Maki does not recognize or suggest a structural configuration corresponding to the claimed distribution ratio (pg 6 full paragraphs 2-5).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. During prosecution the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111. As currently written, claim 10 recites “wherein a distribution region of the active region of the pin cover accounts for 60% of a distribution area of the action platform of the pin cover”. However, the claim does not positively establish the limits of the action region, idle region, or the action platform. Specifically, the use of the transitional phrase “comprising” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements. See MPEP 2111.03(I). As the claim recites no limitation requiring the claimed idle section to directly surround claimed active region nor requiring there be only one region with the features of the claimed active region and idle region, the recitation of “wherein a distribution region of the active region of the pin cover accounts for 60% of a distribution area of the action platform of the pin cover” would necessarily be met merely by arbitrarily assigning the “idle region” and “active region” designations to the device of Maki. Additionally, when separating a chip 60% of the size of the region comprising the holes 19/needles 16 of Fig. 13 of Maki the remaining needles would be removed (see para 0102 of Maki) and the resulting “action region” would be 60% of a distribution area of the action platform of the pin cover.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chin (JPH0878505A)
Nakanishi (JPH11265927A)
Shibata (JPH09181150A)
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 ANDREW L SWANSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1724. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 0800-1900 and every other Friday 0800-1600.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/ANDREW L SWANSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights