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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species I, claims 1-4 and 6-14 in the reply filed on 5/6/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that that no serious burden exists in examining all the pending claims. This is not found persuasive because for purposes of the initial requirement, a serious burden on the examiner may be prima facie shown if the examiner shows by appropriate explanation of separate classification, or separate status in the art, or a different field of search (as defined in MPEP § 808.02). The restriction requirement clearly meets this requirement. While that prima facie showing may be rebutted by appropriate showings or evidence by the applicant, an unsupported statement by applicant that no serious burden would exist in the examination of all pending claims does not qualify as an "appropriate showing" or "evidence". See MPEP 803.
The applicant further argues,
“The present specification itself shows that the Figs. 4-8 pivot/eccentric/drive-rod mechanism and the Figs. 9a-12 rack-and-pinion mechanism are alternative implementations within the same disclosed design space. For the elected Figs. 4-8 embodiment, the lowering mechanism includes a pivot element arranged on the main part to be pivotable about a pivot axis running transversely to the transport direction, an eccentric rotationally coupled to the actuating shaft, and a drive rod acting eccentrically on both the eccentric and the pivot element so that rotation of the actuating shaft pivots the pivot element and vertically moves the drive part. SPEC [0065]- [0067]. The same embodiment further discloses synchronized movement by a synchronization rod coupled eccentrically to two pivot elements. SPEC [0071]. The rack-and-pinion embodiment performs the same vertical drive-part movement in the same center-support environment using a toothed rack on the drive part and a lowering pinion on the main part. SPEC [0081]. Thus, the identified embodiments differ only in the known mechanical conversion used to translate rotary actuation into vertical movement of the same drive part in the same center-support architecture.”
It is unclear as to what is meant by the last sentence as it seems imply each species of lowering mechanisms are known in the art and/or they are obvious variants. Silence to this will be understood as the lowering mechanisms are known in the art and are obvious variants.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Note that while claim 5 is withdrawn it will be addressed with regards to objections and 112 rejections as claim 5 may be rejoined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the option wherein there is more than “at least one main part gear wheel” and there is more than “at least one drive gear wheel” in claim 1, the option wherein there is more than “at least one toothed rack” and more than “at least one lowering pinion” in claim 5, the option wherein there is more than “at least one pivot element” in claim 6, and the option wherein there is more than “at least two points” in claim 8, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because figure 9b shows main part (174) being lowered while one reading the specification would note that it is drive part (176) that is being lowered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “182” in figure 12 has been used to designate both “toothed rack” and “bearing block”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-14 need a proper preposition at the beginning of each claim.
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i). See rejection below for an example indentation.
Claim 8 recites “a synchronized movement of the drive part a synchronization rod is provided for” which is grammatically awkward.
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: “lowering mechanism… for moving” in claim 2.
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.
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 1-14 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 recites the limitation “the transport”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-11 and 14, recite “characterized in that”. It is unclear if these claims are to further characterize the claims from which they depend or are to replace the initial characterizing. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “further characterized”.
Claim 5 recites the limitations “the vertical direction” and “the toothed rack”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitations “one pivot position” and “the other pivot position”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear if these pivot positions are of the “two pivot positions” or not. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as they are the same.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the motion-coupling”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites “synchronization element is provided which acts on at least two points on the drive part in order to effect a synchronized movement of the drive part a synchronization rod is provided for the movement synchronization of the two pivot elements”. It is unclear if the synchronization element and the synchronization rod are to be the same thing since it appears they are performing the same movement. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as they are the same.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the arrangement”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites “solder material”, “a transport direction”, “a soldering system”, and “a center support”. It is unclear if these are the same as those recited in claim 1. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as they are the same.
Claim 13 recites the limitations “the solder material”, “the zones”, “the transport”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “one zone”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Tian (CN 110282377 A).
Regarding claim 1, Tian discloses:
Center support [central support transportation system (5); figures 1-6] for supporting solder material during the transport along a transport direction through a soldering system,
wherein the center support has a main part [fixed base (511)] and a drive part [beam (514)] that is height-adjustable relative to the main part,
wherein the drive part is adjustable between a transport position in which it acts against the solder material and a lowered position in which it does not act against the solder material [note that this is functional language and the beam is vertically movable due to lifting devices (20)], characterized in
that the main part has at least one main part gear wheel [driving roller (523)] and the drive part has at least one drive gear wheel [driven roller (525)] that can be rotationally coupled to the main part gear wheel [the rollers are coupled via conveying belt (53)],
that the drive gear wheel is rotationally coupled to drive rollers [rollers (521, 522)] provided on the drive part, and
that the drive rollers, in the transport position in which the main part gear wheel is rotationally coupled to the drive gear wheel, act against the solder material for supporting the transport of the solder material [see figures].
Regarding claim 2, Tian discloses:
characterized in that a lowering mechanism [lifting device (20)], which can be actuated by means of a rotatably drivable actuating shaft [note that the lifting device could be actuated a rotatably drivable actuating shaft such as a screw rod], is provided between the main part and the drive part for moving the drive part between the transport position and the lowered position [see figure 8].
Regarding claim 9, Tian discloses:
characterized in that a drive shaft seat [area where drive shaft (551) connects to the fixed base] for a drive shaft [drive shaft (551)] for driving the main part gear wheel is provided on the main part.
Regarding claim 10, Tian discloses:
characterized in that an actuating shaft seat [guide plate (5121)] for the actuating shaft is provided on the main part, wherein the arrangement is such that the actuating shaft extends transversely to the transport direction [support rod (20) extends vertically].
Regarding claim 11, while Tian discloses that below this claim is functional language:
characterized in that the main part is provided on a frame [brackets and rods/beams/members connecting them] of a transport unit [the assembly shown in figure 1] for transporting the solder material along the transport direction.
Regarding claim 12, Tian discloses:
Transport unit [the assembly shown in figure 1] for transporting solder material along a transport direction through at least one zone of a soldering system, comprising a center support [central support transportation system (5)] according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Tian discloses:
Soldering system [reflow soldering device; page 2] in which the solder material can be transported along a transport direction through at least one zone [the PCB is transported to the vacuum welding zone by a vacuum transport system; page 2 (note “welding” is poorly translated and should be “soldering”)], characterized in that,
in at least one of the zones [the vacuum welding zone], a transport unit [the assembly shown in figure 1] is provided and comprises a center support [central support transportation system (5); figures 1-6] for supporting the solder material during the transport along a transport direction through the soldering system,
wherein the center support [central support transportation system (5)] for supporting solder material during the transport along a transport direction through a soldering system,
wherein the center support has a main part [fixed base (511)] and a drive part [beam (514)] that is height-adjustable relative to the main part,
wherein the drive part is adjustable between a transport position in which it acts against the solder material and a lowered position in which it does not act against the solder material [note that this is functional language and the beam is vertically movable due to lifting devices (20)], characterized in
that the main part has at least one main part gear wheel [driving roller (523)] and the drive part has at least one drive gear wheel [driven roller (525)] that can be rotationally coupled to the main part gear wheel [the rollers are coupled via conveying belt (53)],
that the drive gear wheel is rotationally coupled to drive rollers [rollers (521, 522)] provided on the drive part, and
that the drive rollers, in the transport position in which the main part gear wheel is rotationally coupled to the drive gear wheel, act against the solder material for supporting the transport of the solder material [see figures].
Regarding claim 14, Tian discloses:
characterized in that one zone [the vacuum welding zone] is designed as a soldering zone in which an openable vacuum chamber is provided [page 2].
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.
Claims 1-3 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian (CN 110282377 A) in view of tech-science “Types of belts for belt drives”. The following applies should the applicant prove Tian does not teach the main part/drive gear wheel.
Regarding claim 1, Tian teaches:
Center support [central support transportation system (5); figures 1-6] for supporting solder material during the transport along a transport direction through a soldering system,
wherein the center support has a main part [fixed base (511)] and a drive part [beam (514)] that is height-adjustable relative to the main part,
wherein the drive part is adjustable between a transport position in which it acts against the solder material and a lowered position in which it does not act against the solder material [note that this is functional language and the beam is vertically movable due to lifting devices (20)], characterized in
that the main part has at least one main part wheel [driving roller (523)] and the drive part has at least one drive wheel [driven roller (525)] that can be rotationally coupled to the main part wheel [the rollers are coupled via conveying belt (53)],
that the drive wheel is rotationally coupled to drive rollers [rollers (521, 522)] provided on the drive part, and
that the drive rollers, in the transport position in which the main part wheel is rotationally coupled to the drive wheel, act against the solder material for supporting the transport of the solder material [see figures].
Tian does not teach:
the wheel is a gear wheel.
tec-science teaches a gear with a timing belt; i.e. a toothed wheel and toothed belt, that prevents slippage; under “Timing belts (synchronous belts)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the gear and timing belt as taught by tec-science into Tian in order to prevent slippage.
Regarding claim 13, Tian teaches:
Soldering system [reflow soldering device; page 2] in which the solder material can be transported along a transport direction through at least one zone [the PCB is transported to the vacuum welding zone by a vacuum transport system; page 2 (note “welding” is poorly translated and should be “soldering”)], characterized in that,
in at least one of the zones [the vacuum welding zone], a transport unit [the assembly shown in figure 1] is provided and comprises a center support [central support transportation system (5); figures 1-6] for supporting the solder material during the transport along a transport direction through the soldering system,
wherein the center support [central support transportation system (5)] for supporting solder material during the transport along a transport direction through a soldering system,
wherein the center support has a main part [fixed base (511)] and a drive part [beam (514)] that is height-adjustable relative to the main part,
wherein the drive part is adjustable between a transport position in which it acts against the solder material and a lowered position in which it does not act against the solder material [note that this is functional language and the beam is vertically movable due to lifting devices (20)], characterized in
that the main part has at least one main part gear wheel [driving roller (523)] and the drive part has at least one drive wheel [driven roller (525)] that can be rotationally coupled to the main part wheel [the rollers are coupled via conveying belt (53)],
that the drive wheel is rotationally coupled to drive rollers [rollers (521, 522)] provided on the drive part, and
that the drive rollers, in the transport position in which the main part wheel is rotationally coupled to the drive wheel, act against the solder material for supporting the transport of the solder material [see figures].
Tian does not teach:
the wheel is a gear wheel.
tec-science teaches a gear with a timing belt; i.e. a toothed wheel and toothed belt, that prevents slippage; under “Timing belts (synchronous belts)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a gear and timing belt as taught by tec-science into Tian in order to prevent slippage.
Regarding claims 2 and 9-11, refer to the rejections of these claims above.
Regarding claim 3, Tian does not teach:
characterized in that the lowering mechanism is motion-coupled to the actuating shaft and designed such that it can be actuated during operation of the center support.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use any type of actuator, including a screw driven actuator, since they are well-known and readily available for purchase, minus any unexpected results. In doing so, the lifting mechanism is coupled to the screw of the actuator and put into motion when activated as desired.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure; see PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS J GAMINO whose telephone number is (571)270-5826. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 5712723458. 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.
/CARLOS J GAMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights