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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 6/27/25. These drawings are unacceptable.
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 “bearing” of claims 1 and 13, and the “arrangement” of claim 4, 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:
In the 06/27/25 drawings, figure 4 has two “66”s. (66) is the base part which is made from side parts (68) and struts (70). Thus, the left most “68” should be “66”.
In the 06/27/25 drawings, figure 1 has an attempt at “41”. However, as it is shown in the figure there is a “4” that is separate from a “1” (41). Also, there is no line indicating what the attempted “41” is referring too.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, 13 and 17 objected to because of the following informalities: claims 1 and 13, the last paragraph contains two wherein clauses which should be indented separately with the “and” placed accordingly; claims 9 and 17, contain multiple elements which should be indented separately with an “and” placed accordingly; and claim 13, there needs to be an “and” at the end of the “a pressure chamber” paragraph and in the transport” paragraph “the:” should be “the”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 4, 5, 7-11, 13, and 15-17 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 “which act on the printed circuit boards to transport the printed circuit boards”. It is unclear as which element of the claim is performing this function.
Claim 1 recites “wherein, the transport unit further comprises two transport tracks running in the direction of transport and upon which the transport unit moves”. As noted by applicant’s arguments the drive parts are not located on the transport tracks but that the receiving and drive parts belong to the transport tracks. Thus, it is unclear how the transport unit can move upon itself.
Claim 1 recites “at least two drive parts … wherein, the transport unit further comprises two transport tracks… wherein, each transport track of the two transport tracks has includes two edge receiving parts, the two edge drive parts, one center drive part and one center receiving part, wherein the center drive part and the center receiving part correspond in structure to the at least two drive parts and the plurality of receiving parts.” Figures 4 and 5 depict a transport unit with two transport tracks (60) and one transport track, respectively. Since two tracks are claimed there are at least six drive parts (86-91) and six receiving parts (76-81) which would correspond to each transport track having the two edge receiving parts, two edge drive parts, one center drive part, and one center receiving part. Thus, it is unclear as to how there can be “at least two drive parts” when the least possible is six. Furthermore, it is unclear as to how the two edge receiving parts and the two edge drive parts do not correspond in structure to the at least two drive parts and the plurality of receiving parts; i.e. if they are not drive or receiving parts then what are they.
Claim 2 recites “adjacent drive rollers of the drive rollers”. It is unclear if “the drive rollers” refers to the any drive roller or to the “plurality of drive rollers”.
Claim 2 recites “one gear”. It is unclear if this gear is the “drive gear” or one of the “gears”.
Claims 7 recites the limitation “the output gear”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 7, 8, and 11 recite the limitation “the receiving parts”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the spindle shafts”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner suggests –the coupled spindle shaft--.
Claim 9 recites “the plurality of receiving parts comprise the two edge receiving parts and the at least two drive parts comprise the two edge drive parts” while claim 1 recites “wherein the center drive part and the center receiving part correspond in structure to the at least two drive parts and the plurality of receiving parts.” It is unclear if the receiving and drive parts further comprise the two edge receiving and drive parts or if they are replacing the center receiving and drive parts.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the region”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the at least two edge drive parts”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the edge receiving parts”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “a center drive part”. It is unclear if this the same as that in claim 1 or not.
Claim 13 recites “at least two output gears…” and “at least two drive parts…” It is unclear if these are part of the transport unit or soldering system. The examiner notes that if they are part of the transport unit the use of proper indentation and an “and” would resolve this.
Claim 13 recites “a base” twice. It is unclear if these are the same or not. Additionally, each mention of “the base” is indefinite since it is not clear as to which is being referred to.
Claim 13 recites “the transport unit comprising a base part is provided with an output shaft”. It is unclear if the transport unit or base part is provided with the output shaft.
Claim 13 suffers from the same issues noted above in paragraphs 8-10.
Claim 13 recites “at least two output gears”. Since there are two tracks and thus six drive parts as show in figure 4 it is unclear how there can only be two output gears.
Claim 13 recites the limitations “the drive parts”, “the output gears”, and “the associated drive gear”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. In the case of the last phrase, the examiner suggests “the coupled drive gear”.
Claim 13 recites “the receiving parts have an output gear”. It is unclear if this gear is one of the “at least two output gears”, “the output gears”, or neither.
Claim 13 recites “at least one of the receiving parts”. Since there are two tracks and thus six receiving parts as show in figure 4 it is unclear how only one receiving part is arranged to allow movement and adjustment.
Claim 15 recites the limitations “the preheating zone”, “the soldering zone”, and “the cooling zone”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitations “the at least one adjusting shaft”, “the outer edge receiving parts”, “the edge receiving parts”, and “the at least one center receiving part”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitations “the at least one adjusting shaft” and “the at least one center receiving part”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 16 recites “spindle shaft”. It is unclear if this is one of the “plurality of spindle shafts, “the spindle shaft”, or neither.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/27/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as there is an extreme amount of 112 issues remaining in addition to the drawing objections.
The examiner suggests the following example to help with claims 1 and 13 [notice this suggestion is primarily for showing better formatting and only addresses a few of the 112 issues noted above]:
A transport unit for transporting printed circuit boards along a direction of transport within at least one zone of a soldering system, the transport unit comprising:
a base part provided with an output shaft that can be driven;
at least two output gears which are rotatably coupled to the output shaft;
at least two drive parts which are releasably fastened on and removable from the base part and which act on the printed circuit boards to transport the printed circuit boards through the at least one zone,
wherein the at least two drive parts are each provided with a drive gear in such a manner that the at least two drive parts have drive rollers which are rotatably coupled to the drive gear, and
when the at least two drive parts are fastened to the base part, each of the output gears is in engagement with the associated drive gear;
a plurality of receiving parts which extend in direction of the transport on the base part for receiving and releasably fastening the at least two drive parts; and
two transport tracks running in the direction of transport;
wherein…,
wherein…, and
wherein…
Conclusion
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 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