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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-7 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 1 (and thus its dependent claims) recites the limitation "the bonding state" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (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.
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.
Claims 1-4,6,7, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US 11,189,507) in view of Cho (KR20220060767A) and Schmidt (US 6,322,119).
Re claim 1, Yu teaches (figure 1, etc.) a die bonding stage for a semiconductor wafer, the die bonding state comprising: a surface plate (not numbered, see figures 1-3,6); a single pair of bridges (not numbered, see figures 2,3,6) installed on the surface plate; and a base (not numbered, under 42 & 43), see figures 2,3,6) installed on the single pair of bridges, wherein the base is in a rectangular frame shape with open center (see figure 6) by integrally combining a horizontal beam and a vertical beam.
Yu has first and second movers 40,40’ but does not mention stators or sliders moving on slider tracks.
However, Cho teaches a device with an interior mounted mover slider 500 with cores interacting with magnet track 400 & outside mounted sliders 300 which move opposite each other limiting vibration on a rectangular base.
Schmidt (figure 3) teaches a guide base beam 26,26a with stators 64,61 & sliders 36,38,40,42 on opposite sides to allow moving units 30,32 to move on opposites of the beam without impeding each other’s desired movement.
Yu seems to have the correct number of supports and bridges, etc. as claimed but the figures and views are difficult to get a clear view. So to avoid potential arguments it is noted that duplication and rearrangement of parts are known to be obvious modifications (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Yu as claimed in order to allow a sufficiently strong support, reduced vibration, and powered controlled & unimpeded movement on both side of the beams to allow desired movement of the sliders and movers.
Re claim 2, Yu teaches a picker unit 41 configured to transfer a wafer chip 70 is installed below the first mover 40.
Re claim 3, Yu does not mention encoders, but Schmidt (figure 3) teaches using encoders 149 on the side of movers 30,32 to track / control position of the movers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Yu as claimed in order to allow tracking and position control of the movers.
Re claim 4, Yu as already modified may have the moving portions (magnet / electromagnet drives) as claimed but for clarity & to avoid potential arguments it is noted that duplication and rearrangement of parts are known to be obvious modifications (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)).
It would have been obvious ton one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Yu as claimed in order to allow controlled movement of the movers as desired.
Re claims 6,7, Yu shows various unnumbered brackets in the figures but does not teach a cable tray. However, Schmidt (figure 3) teaches cable guard 72,73 tray and bracket 28 (figures 2,3) which allows a space for the movers to move and the cable tray to be. Schmidt has the pickers above the movers and cable guard below, but Yu has the pickers opposite, below and so likewise a modification adding the cable guard would have the cable guard / tray above. Further, it is noted that duplication and rearrangement of parts are known to be obvious modifications (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Yu as claimed in order space items to allow space to move and a place for the cables to be protected.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US 11,189,507) in view of Cho (KR20220060767A), Schmidt (US 6,322,119) and Kamata (JPH10309071A).
Re claim 5, Yu does not teach the moving portions as claimed. However, Kamata teaches (see figures) liquid (official notice is given that water is a liquid) cooled linear motors with cooling jackets 4,4’,5 through which the coolant flows (through 6) to better cool the motor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Yu as claimed in order to better cool the linear motors.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ochiishi (see figures, abstract) teaches a picker with mover with cable tray 18 and rails.
Shibazaki (see figures, abstract) teaches a stage with rectangular base beams, mover & stator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S LOWE whose telephone number is (571)272-6929. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling M,Th,F & alternating W 6:30am-6:30pm.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 5712727097. 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.
MICHAEL S. LOWE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/MICHAEL S LOWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights