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 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “pneumatic system” 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.
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: pneumatic system in Claim 1.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, Claim 9 recites the limitation “a drill tool”. It is unclear whether this is meant to be the same “drilling tool” set forth in Claim 1 or a separate one entirely. Appropriate correction required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-9 and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang CN110695731 based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention.
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses automatic drilling equipment for drilling notches in a plurality of trays, the equipment comprising: a drilling tool (Wang; 13; fig 5); and a tray base (Wang; 7; fig 4) configured to hold and move a plurality of trays on the tray base with respect to the drilling tool, said drilling tool configured to drill the plurality of trays to open a notch at the same position in each tray of the plurality of trays at the same time (Wang; base 7 configured to move relative to the drill assembly and drill assembly configured to drill into workpiece(s) that are on base, plurality of workpieces incorporated from CN207288941U as referenced by Wang; fig 1).
Regarding claim 2, Wang discloses the automatic drilling equipment of claim 1 wherein the plurality of trays are packaging trays for failure chips (Wang is intended to drill into flat plate or tray like workpieces which constitutes a tray for the purposes of Claim 2).
The recitations of “are packaging trays for failure chips” are intended use limitations and as such are given no patentable weight. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP 2115 which states that the material or article worked upon by the apparatus does not limit the apparatus and the fact that the cited apparatus is capable of performing work on a similar workpiece this limitation is met.
Regarding claim 3, Wang discloses the automatic drilling equipment of claim 1 wherein the plurality of trays consists of four or more trays in a stack (Wang; base 7 and drill assembly 13 configured to drill into workpiece(s) that are on base, plurality of workpieces consisting of four workpieces incorporated from CN207288941U as referenced by Wang; fig 1). See also MPEP 2115 which states that the material or article worked upon by the apparatus does not limit the apparatus and the fact that the cited apparatus is capable of performing work on a similar workpiece this limitation is met.
Regarding claim 4, Wang discloses the automatic drilling equipment of claim 1 wherein the tray base further includes at least one tray clamp for securing the plurality of trays on the tray base (Wang; 10; fig 4).
Regarding claim 5, Wang discloses the automatic drilling equipment of claim 1 wherein the drilling tool includes a motor for driving a drilling process (Wang; 16; fig 5).
Regarding claim 6, Wang discloses the automatic drilling equipment of claim 1 further comprising a vacuum cleaning tool for cleaning debris generated by the drilling tool during a drilling process of the plurality of trays (Wang; 22; fig 1).
Regarding claim 8, Wang discloses the automatic drilling equipment of claim 1 wherein the tray base further includes a bearing tool for controlling the movement of the tray base (Wang; 2, 3, 6, and 5 are used to move base 7 in relation to 13; fig 1).
Regarding claim 9, Wang discloses the automatic drilling equipment of claim 1 further including a pneumatic system for operating a drill tool (Wang; 14 is described as a pneumatic cylinder and is part of the drill assembly and contributes to the operation of said assembly; fig 5).
Regarding claim 25, Wang discloses an automatic drilling equipment for drilling notches in a plurality of trays, the equipment comprising: a drilling tool (Wang; 13; fig 5); and a tray base configured to hold and move a plurality of trays on the tray base with respect to the drilling tool (Wang; 7; fig 1), the tray base including a plurality of tray clamps (Wang; 10; fig 4) for securing the plurality of trays on the tray base, said drilling tool configured to drill the plurality of trays to open a notch at the same position in each tray of the plurality of trays at the same time (Wang; base 7 configured to move relative to the drill assembly and drill assembly configured to drill into workpiece(s) that are on base, plurality of workpieces incorporated from CN207288941U as referenced by Wang; fig 1).
Regarding claim 26, The automatic drilling equipment of claim 25 wherein the plurality of trays are packaging trays for failure chips (Wang is intended to drill into flat plate or tray like workpieces which constitutes a tray for the purposes of Claim 26).
The recitations of “are packaging trays for failure chips” are intended use limitations and as such are given no patentable weight. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP 2115 which states that the material or article worked upon by the apparatus does not limit the apparatus and the fact that the cited apparatus is capable of performing work on a similar workpiece this limitation is met.
Regarding claim 27, The automatic drilling equipment of claim 25 wherein the plurality of trays consists of four or more trays in a stack (Wang; base 7 and drill assembly 13 configured to drill into workpiece(s) that are on base, plurality of workpieces consisting of four workpieces incorporated from CN207288941U as referenced by Wang; fig 1). See also MPEP 2115 which states that the material or article worked upon by the apparatus does not limit the apparatus and the fact that the cited apparatus is capable of performing work on a similar workpiece this limitation is met.
Regarding claim 28, The automatic drilling equipment of claim 25 wherein the drilling tool includes a motor for driving a drilling process (Wang; 16; fig 5).
Regarding claim 29, The automatic drilling equipment of claim 25 further comprising a vacuum cleaning tool for cleaning debris generated by the drilling tool during a drilling process of the plurality of trays (Wang; 22; fig 1).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang CN110695731 in view of Yang CN112828337.
Regarding claim 7, Wang discloses the automatic drilling equipment of claim 4 wherein the at least one tray clamp is a plurality of tray clamps (Wang; 10; fig 4).
Wang does not explicitly disclose the tray clamps including a plurality of sensors configured to detect the presence of a loaded plurality of trays on the tray base.
Yang teaches the tray clamps including a plurality of sensors configured to detect the presence of a loaded plurality of trays on the tray base (Yang; pressure sensor 6; fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Wang to include pressure sensors in the clamping mechanism similar to those taught by Yang which Yang uses to automatically detect workpieces and further to stop the actuation of the clamping mechanisms.
Claim(s) 10, 12, 14 and 30-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang CN110695731 in view of Vatterott US20140015389.
Regarding claim 10, Wang discloses the automatic drilling equipment in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Wang does not explicitly disclose the automatic drilling equipment further comprising a maintenance screen.
Vatterott teaches the automatic drilling equipment further comprising a maintenance screen (Vatterott; 48; fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Wang to include a maintenance screen such as the one taught by Vatterott which is used to “provide information on the process and to allow for interruptions of the mechanical processes” (section [0008]) and one skilled in the art would recognize the advantages this would provide to the device of Wang.
Regarding claim 12, Wang discloses the automatic drilling equipment of claim.
Wang does not explicitly disclose the automatic drilling equipment further comprising an emergency stop button.
Vatterott teaches the automatic drilling equipment further comprising an emergency stop button (Vatterott; 78; fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Wang to include an emergency stop feature such as that of Vatterott which they use to prevent power from reaching any operative component of the control panel and further, is required by law in the United States.
Regarding claim 14, Wang discloses the automatic drilling equipment of claim 1.
Wang does not explicitly disclose the automatic drilling equipment further comprising a reset button, a start button and a stop button.
Vatterott teaches the automatic drilling equipment further comprising a reset button, a start button and a stop button (Vatterott; part of panel 46; fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Wang to include the start, stop and restart buttons of Vatterott which are included in the main control value and provide an interface for the user to better control the machine system.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang CN110695731 in view of Jacot US20180222003.
Regarding claim 11, Wang discloses the automatic drilling equipment of claim 1.
Wang does not explicitly disclose the automatic drilling equipment further comprising a status traffic light.
Jacot teaches the automatic drilling equipment further comprising a status traffic light (Jacot; warning light 142; fig 1)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Wang to include a status light system similar to that of Jacot which is used to alert the staff and make things more convenient to perceive and maintain (section [0046]).
Claim(s) 13, 15 and 30-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang CN110695731 in view of Tan CN113305634.
Regarding claim 13, Wang discloses the automatic drilling equipment of claim 1.
Wang does not explicitly disclose the automatic drilling equipment further comprising access doors for shielding the drilling tool.
Tan teaches the automatic drilling equipment further comprising access doors for shielding the drilling tool (Tan; Access doors on 21; fig 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Wang to include an access door such as that of Tan which Tan uses to better contain chips and particles generated in the operation process of the machine.
Regarding claim 15, Wang discloses the automatic drilling equipment of claim 6.
Wang does not explicitly disclose the automatic drilling equipment further comprising a cabinet, an upper compartment of the cabinet containing the drilling tool and a lower compartment of the cabinet containing the vacuum cleaning tool.
Tan teaches the automatic drilling equipment further comprising a cabinet (Tan; 2; fig 1), an upper compartment of the cabinet containing the drilling tool (Tan; 21; fig 2) and a lower compartment of the cabinet containing the vacuum cleaning tool (Tan; 31; fig 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Wang to rearrange the location of Wang’s vacuum to be vertically aligned beneath the working area of the machine which would serve to allow for a smaller footprint and that Tan uses to better collect debris generated by the work being performed. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)
Regarding claim 30, Wang discloses automatic drilling equipment for drilling notches in a plurality of trays, the equipment comprising: a drilling tool (Wang; 13; fig 1); a tray base configured to hold and move a plurality of trays on the tray base with respect to the drilling tool (Wang; 7; fig 1), the tray base including a plurality of tray clamps for securing the plurality of trays on the tray base (Wang; 10; fig 4), said drilling tool configured to drill the plurality of trays to open a notch at the same position in each tray of the plurality of trays at the same time.
Wang does not explicitly disclose a cabinet including an upper compartment that contains the drilling tool and a lower compartment that contains a vacuum cleaning tool.
Tan teaches the automatic drilling equipment further comprising a cabinet (Tan; 2; fig 1), an upper compartment of the cabinet containing the drilling tool (Tan; 21; fig 2) and a lower compartment of the cabinet containing the vacuum cleaning tool (Tan; 31; fig 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Wang to rearrange the location of Wang’s vacuum to be vertically aligned beneath the working area of the machine which would serve to allow for a smaller footprint and that Tan uses to better collect debris generated by the work being performed. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)
Regarding claim 31, Wang discloses the automatic drilling equipment of claim 30 wherein the tray base includes a bearing tool for controlling the movement of the tray base (Wang; movement is accomplished by components 3, 2, 5 and 6; fig 1).
Regarding claim 32, The automatic drilling equipment of claim 30 wherein the drilling tool includes a motor for driving a drilling process (Wang; 16; fig 5).
Regarding claim 33, Wang discloses the automatic drilling equipment of claim 30.
Wang does not explicitly disclose the automatic drilling equipment further comprising access doors for shielding the drilling tool.
Tan teaches the automatic drilling equipment further comprising access doors for shielding the drilling tool (Tan; Access doors on 21; fig 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Wang to include an access door such as that of Tan which Tan uses to better contain chips and particles generated in the operation process of the machine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN J TRUJILLO whose telephone number is (703)756-4705. The examiner can normally be reached 7-5 M-Th.
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, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/D.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3722
/ADAM J EISEMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights