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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 03/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 17 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/17/2026.
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: bond head, stage body, linear carriage, end mountings in claim 1 and claim 4 (end mountings).
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. The bond head is interpreted as structure #28 as in [0022] of corresponding U.S Publication 20260107808A1, the stage body is interpreted as structure #26 as in [0022], and the linear carriage is interpreted as structure #16 as in [0022]. The end mountings are interpreted as structure #21 as in [0024].
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.
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) 1, 6-14, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaunekar (U.S PG Pub 20070084901A1), and Hazelton (U.S Patent 6437463B1).
Regarding claim 1, Gaunekar, drawn also to the art of a bond head assembly, discloses a bond head (collet 22) [0020], a stage body supporting the bond head (12), and a linear carriage (support structure 14) [0019], wherein the stage body and carriage are coupled by flexures (16 & 18) [0019]. Gaunekar has disclosed both the carriage and stage body moving and that they move relative to each other, both being drivable by a motor [0020-0021], and has disclosed the bond head being movable by electromagnetic interaction [0024]. Gaunekar has not explicitly disclosed the carriage and stage body being decoupled and being movable relative to each via electromagnetic interaction. It is noted, however, that making a structure separable by itself is not patentably distinguishing over the prior art in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04 (V) (C)).
Hazelton, drawn also to the art of a wafer positioning and bonding apparatus (Title; Abstract), discloses a fine stage (interpreted as the stage body) and a course stage (interpreted as the linear carriage), wherein the fine stage and course stage are decoupled or are not in contact (Columns 4-5, lines 59-67 & 1-6), and wherein electromagnetic interaction is utilized to move the stages (Column 4, lines 32-58).
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the apparatus of Gaunekar, with the decoupling of the stage body and the linear carriage, and the movement being carried out by electromagnetic interaction, as disclosed by Hazelton, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to improve the dynamic performance of the apparatus and reduce mechanical complexity (Column 4, lines 26-30).
Regarding claim 6, Gaunekar as modified by Hazelton has disclosed the instant limitations. Hazelton discloses a planar motor coil assembly in the linear carriage and planar motor magnets in the stage body (Column 4, lines 32-35 & Column 5, lines 11-18).
it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the apparatus of Gaunekar, with the planar motor coil and magnet, as disclosed by Hazelton, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to be able to drive the fine stage in six degrees of freedom with respect to the coarse stage (Column 5, lines 35-37).
Regarding claim 7, Gaunekar as modified by Hazelton discloses a gap between the stage body and the linear carriage and the two being physically decoupled (Column 6, lines 20-30 – Hazelton discloses that the fine stage floats above the coarse stage and does not physically contact it).
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified apparatus of Gaunekar, with the gap, as disclosed by Hazelton, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to improve the dynamic performance of the apparatus and reduce mechanical complexity (Column 4, lines 26-30).
Regarding claim 8, Gaunekar as modified by Hazelton discloses the instant limitations. Hazelton discloses the planar motor magnets being oriented at different angles and that the magnets have independent magnetic fields, which would mean that the plurality of motor forces arising from the electromagnetic interaction would act in different directions (Column 5, lines 11-29; Figures 4-5).
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified apparatus of Gaunekar, with the magnets being at different angles, as disclosed by Hazelton, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to improve the dynamic performance of the apparatus and reduce mechanical complexity (Column 4, lines 26-30).
Regarding claims 9-10, Gaunekar as modified by Hazelton discloses the instant limitations. Hazelton discloses air bellows (interpreted as air bearing pads) may be mounted between the two stages, in addition to the magnets (Column 4, lines 59-67), which would also mean that the air bellows are preloaded by an intrinsic magnetic attraction, in order to be able to function in sync with the magnets.
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the apparatus of Gaunekar, with the air bellows of Hazelton, to arrive at the instant invention, since as such this would merely involve a combination of known prior art elements according to known methods, which is held to be obvious (MPEP 2143 I(A)).
Regarding claims 11-13, Gaunekar has disclosed a local positioning system comprising an encoder (26) and a scale (27) [0025], wherein the encoder is movable (since the support structure is movable [0020]). Gaunekar also discloses that the local positioning sensor is able to synchronize the movement of the stage body and carriage by being able to monitor the distance moved by the bond body and is configured to monitor the movement of the bond body relative to the support structure (i.e. stage body and linear carriage) (Claims 13-14).
Regarding claim 14, Gaunekar has disclosed a contact sensor (interpreted as global positioning sensor) being present on the bond body i.e. bond head [0006].
Regarding claim 16, Gaunekar has disclosed the instant limitations. Gaunekar discloses that the supporting structure is preferably stationary when the bond body moves to pick up a die or rather to a target location [0025], and given that the bond body is a tool that picks up a die or bonds a die [0021], it can be reasonably expected that the bond body would move with higher accuracy over a shorter distance than the linear carriage, since as also disclosed in figure 2, the linear carriage (supporting structure) is what holds the stage body and bonding head and moved it into different overall positions rather than discrete and specific positions that the bonding body moves in order to be able to pick or bond a die. Further, the above limitations are intended use recitation limitations of the apparatus and do not patentably distinguish the structure over the prior art, and the apparatus of Gaunekar is capable of performing the intended use recitation (MPEP 2114 & 2115).
Regarding claim 17, Gaunekar as modified by Hazelton discloses the instant limitations. Hazelton discloses that the fine stage is drivable relative to the coarse stage on a plane that is parallel to a top surface of a base in linear directions as well as rotary direction in multiple degrees of freedom, as Hazelton discloses the fine stage being movable up to 6 degrees of freedom relative to the coarse stage (Column 5, lines 35-37).
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the apparatus of Gaunekar, with the fine stage being movable up to six degrees of freedom more relative to the coarse stage, as disclosed by Hazelton, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to improve the dynamic performance of the apparatus and reduce mechanical complexity (Column 4, lines 26-30).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaunekar (U.S PG Pub 20070084901A1), Hazelton (U.S Patent 6437463B1), and Kurosawa (U.S PG Pub 20190049230A1).
Regarding claims 2-3, Gaunekar and Hazelton have not explicitly disclosed a shaft as claimed with the linear motor and magnets as claimed. The above limitations are disclosed by Kurosawa.
Kurosawa, drawn also to the art of a linear and rotation drive apparatus (Abstract), discloses a shaft that has a linear motor with magnets ([0029]; Figure 2). Kurosawa discloses a coil assembly as well [0030], and discloses the magnets to be on the shaft [0029].
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the apparatus of Gaunekar, with the shaft as claimed, as well as the linear motor with coil and magnets, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to be able to minimize inertia when a shaft is rotated or moved linearly [0005]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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 does not reasonably show or suggest the end mountings at opposite ends of the shaft and balancing mass linear motor which is operative to adjust and correct positions of the end mountings (claim 4), and claim 5 is dependent on claim 4. The prior art of record does not reasonably show or suggest the set of capacitive sensors and set of encoder sensors that are movable together relative to a reference plate and an encoder scale as in claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US-5971254-A, US-20040188026-A1, US-7265461-B2, US-20110048648-A1 – all drawn to bonding apparatus and bonding methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights