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 .
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, 5-6, 8-9 and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN110695731) in view of Zhao (CN 108188429) and Yang (CN 112828337).
Regarding claims 1 and 25, Wang discloses an automatic drilling equipment capable of drilling notches in a plurality of trays, the equipment comprising a drilling tool 13 and a tray base 7 capable of holding and moving a plurality of trays on the tray base with respect to the drilling tool. The drilling tool is configured to drill the plurality of workpieces to open a notch at the same position in each of the plurality of workpieces at the same time. The tray base includes a plurality of manually-operated clamps 9/10/11/12 (see e.g. Fig. 4) adapted to secure the workpieces thereon, however Wang does not disclose the clamps being pneumatically operated or sensors in communication with the plurality of pneumatic clamps.
Zhao discloses a similar piece of drilling equipment, wherein the base is provided with a plurality of pneumatically operated clamps 14.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace the manually-operated clamps of Wang with the pneumatically-operated clamps taught by Zhao in order to dramatically speed up the process of clamping the workpiece(s) in place, and to provide clamping evenly rather than by manually tightening one clamp at a time. Neither Wang nor Zhao disclose the claimed sensors however.
Yang discloses another similar piece of drilling equipment, wherein sensors 6 are provided to detect the presence of a workpiece and are in communication with the plurality of clamps (electric telescopic mechanism(s) 14 as described at Page 4, Lines 1-3 of the English translation of the document provided with the Non-Final Rejection of 09/25/2025).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the device of Wang in view of Zhao by incorporating the plurality of sensors configured to detect the presence of the workpiece(s) as taught by Yang, and to put the sensors in communication with the plurality of workpiece clamps as also taught by Wang in order to ensure the workpiece(s) are properly loaded and clamped into position before starting the machining operation, reducing the amount of waste and rework required.
Regarding claims 2 and 26, Wang discloses the drilling equipment being capable of drilling into packaging trays for failure chips.
Regarding claims 3 and 27, Wang discloses the drilling equipment being capable of drilling four or more trays in a stack.
Regarding claims 5 and 28, Wang discloses the drilling tool including a motor for driving a drilling process.
Regarding claims 6 and 29, Wang discloses the drilling equipment further comprising a vacuum cleaning tool 22 for cleaning debris generated by the drilling tool during a drilling process.
Regarding claim 8, Wang discloses the drilling equipment including a bearing tool 2/3/5/6 for controlling the movement of the tray base.
Regarding claim 9, Wang discloses a hydraulic cylinder 14 being provided to operate the drill tool. While similar, Wang does not disclose this hydraulic cylinder being pneumatic.
However, Zhao discloses interchangeability between hydraulic and pneumatic cylinders (e.g. Page 2, Paragraph 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the hydraulic cylinder taught by Wang with a pneumatic cylinder as taught by Zhao in order to standardize the power source for the clamps and drill.
Claims 10, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN110695731) in view of Zhao (CN 108188429) and Yang (CN 112828337) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vatterott et al. (US 20140015389, hereinafter ‘Vatterott’).
Regarding claim 10, none of Wang, Zhao and Yang explicitly disclose a maintenance screen.
Vatterott discloses a modular manufacturing system enclosure provided with a maintenance screen 48.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the maintenance screen taught by Vatterott to the modified apparatus of claim 1 to provide information on the process and allow for interruptions of the mechanical processes as taught by Vatterott (Paragraph [0008])
Regarding claim 12, none of Wang, Zhao and Yang explicitly disclose an emergency stop button.
Vatterott discloses a modular manufacturing system enclosure provided with an emergency stop button 78.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the emergency stop button taught by Vatterott to the modified apparatus of claim 1 to allow a user to quickly and safely stop operations in the event anything went wrong during processing.
Regarding claim 14, none of Wang, Zhao and Yang explicitly disclose reset, start and/or stop buttons.
As discussed above, Vatterott discloses a control panel 46/48 provided to allow a user to start, stop and reset a process.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide start, stop and reset buttons to the modified apparatus of claim 1 in order to allow a user to centrally start, stop and reset a process.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN110695731) in view of Zhao (CN 108188429) and Yang (CN 112828337) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jacot et al. (US 20180222003, hereinafter ‘Jacot’).
Regarding claim 11, none of Wang, Zhao and Yang explicitly disclose a status traffic light.
Jacot discloses a piece of automatic drilling equipment having a status traffic light 142.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of claim 1 by incorporating a status traffic light as taught by Jacot in order to allow an operator to quickly and easily see the status of one or more machines operating at a glance.
Claims 13, 15 and 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN110695731) in view of Zhao (CN 108188429) and Yang (CN 112828337) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Tan (CN 113305634).
Regarding claim 13, none of Wang, Zhao and Yang explicitly disclose access doors on the drilling equipment for shielding the drilling tool.
Tan discloses a manufacturing apparatus provided with access doors (see Fig. 1) for shielding the machining tool and its control components.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of claim 1 by providing protective doors as taught by Tan in order to protect the operator as well as keep the facility more clean by preventing debris from machining being scattered away from the machine.
Regarding claim 15, None of Wang, Zhao and Yang disclose a cabinet with upper and lower compartments as claimed.
Tan discloses a manufacturing apparatus provided in a cabinet having upper 21 and lower 31 compartments containing the manufacturing tool and vacuum cleaning tool respectively.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the cabinet with upper and lower compartments, as taught by Tan to the drilling apparatus of claim 6 in order to enclose the apparatus for safety and to save space by locating the vacuum unit below the drilling tool.
Regarding claims 30 and 33, Wang discloses an automatic drilling equipment capable of drilling notches in a plurality of trays, the equipment comprising a drilling tool 13 and a tray base 7 capable of holding and moving a plurality of trays on the tray base with respect to the drilling tool. The drilling tool is configured to drill the plurality of workpieces to open a notch at the same position in each of the plurality of workpieces at the same time. The tray base includes a plurality of manually-operated clamps 9/10/11/12 (see e.g. Fig. 4) adapted to secure the workpieces thereon, however Wang does not disclose the clamps being pneumatically operated, sensors in communication with the plurality of pneumatic clamps or a cabinet as claimed.
Zhao discloses a similar piece of drilling equipment, wherein the base is provided with a plurality of pneumatically operated clamps 14.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace the manually-operated clamps of Wang with the pneumatically-operated clamps taught by Zhao in order to dramatically speed up the process of clamping the workpiece(s) in place, and to provide clamping evenly rather than by manually tightening one clamp at a time. Neither Wang nor Zhao disclose the claimed sensors or cabinet however.
Yang discloses another similar piece of drilling equipment, wherein sensors 6 are provided to detect the presence of a workpiece and are in communication with the plurality of clamps (electric telescopic mechanism(s) 14 as described at Page 4, Lines 1-3 of the English translation of the document provided with the Non-Final Rejection of 09/25/2025).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the device of Wang in view of Zhao by incorporating the plurality of sensors configured to detect the presence of the workpiece(s) as taught by Yang, and to put the sensors in communication with the plurality of workpiece clamps as also taught by Wang in order to ensure the workpiece(s) are properly loaded and clamped into position before starting the machining operation, reducing the amount of waste and rework required. None of Wang, Zhao and Yang disclose a cabinet with upper and lower compartments as claimed.
Tan discloses a manufacturing apparatus provided with access doors (see Fig. 1) for shielding the machining tool and its control components in a cabinet having upper 21 and lower 31 compartments containing the manufacturing tool and vacuum cleaning tool respectively.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the cabinet with upper and lower compartments and access doors, as taught by Tan to the drilling apparatus of Wang, Zhao and Yang in order to enclose the apparatus for safety and to save space by locating the vacuum unit below the drilling tool.
Regarding claim 31, Wang discloses the drilling equipment including a bearing tool 2/3/5/6 for controlling the movement of the tray base.
Regarding claim 32, Wang discloses the drilling tool including a motor for driving a drilling process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-15 and 25-33 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Alan Snyder whose telephone number is (571)272-4603. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 7:00a - 5:00p.
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 K 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.
/Alan Snyder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights