DETAILED ACTION
The Applicant’s amendment filed on July 29, 2025 was received. Claims 1 and 3 were amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action issued May 20, 2025.
Specification
The amendment to the title has been received and is acceptable.
Claim Interpretation
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:
driving mechanism in claim 1;
position correction mechanism in claim 4.
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 § 102 & 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura on claims 1-2 are withdrawn because independent claim 1 has been amended.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura and Onishi on claim 3 is withdrawn because independent claim 1 has been amended.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura and Kobayashi on claims 4-6 are withdrawn because independent claim 1 has been amended.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura and Sato on claim 7 is withdrawn because independent claim 1 has been amended.
Please consider the date.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumioka (US 2014/0020578) in view of Fukakusa (WO2018096607A1, corresponding US 2019/0337287 cited below).
In regards to claim 1, Sumioka teaches a screen printing machine (10) which uses a screen mask (1) and squeegee (91) to apply solder onto a board (fig. 1-5; para. 2, 31), the machine comprising:
a plurality of legs-11a (support columns) on a surface (fig. 1, 3-5; para. 34);
a mask supporting mechanism (12) connected to an inner side of upper beams-11c that is directly connect to tops of the plurality of legs-11a (fig. 1, 3-5; para. 35);
a traveling unit (30, driving mechanism) which moves a print head (60) having the squeegee is fixed to Y-axis frames-11e (squeegee frame) on the upper beams-11c, that is directly connect to tops of the plurality of legs-11a, where the Y-axis frames-11e is separate from the mask supporting mechanism as the screen mask can be replaced while leaving the squeegee is mounted (fig. 2-5; para. 8, 45-47, 57).
Sumioka does not explicitly teach a bed.
However, Fukakusa teaches a screen printing machine comprising main body frame (26) onto which a mask holding device (18) and a squeegee device (22) is provided upon (fig. 1; para. 34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the main body frame of Fukakusa onto the screen printing machine of Sumioka because Fukakusa because it was a construction known to the art to be suitable and effective for elevating the screen printing machine for easier access for an operator and doing so would produce no more than predictable results.
In regards to claim 2, Sumioka and Fukakusa as discussed, where Sumioka teaches the Y-axis frames-11e (squeegee frame) is smaller than the plurality of legs-11a, and Fukakusa teaches the main body frame (26) which connects to the plurality of legs-11a is depicted as a box (fig. 1). This arrangement of elements and size differences of the different elements allows for the capability of the claimed rigidity in the movement direction of the squeegee of the mask frame and the squeegee frame are smaller than a rigidity of the bed.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumioka and Fukakusa as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Onishi (US 6,935,232).
In regards to claim 3, Sumioka and Fukakusa as discussed, where Sumioka teaches
the Y-axis frames-11e has separate ends that is fixed to traveling unit and mask supporting mechanism is side by side with the Y-axis frames-11e, where the screen mask is positioned within (fig. 1, 3-5).
Sumioka and Fukakusa do not explicitly teach the squeegee frame comprises a portal shape.
However Onishi teaches the frame structure for a printing head section (370) comprising a portal shape (fig. 44-45; col. 44, lines 25-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the portal shape of Onishi onto the frame of Sumioka and Fukakusa because the particular shape of the squeegee frame a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed squeegee frame is significant (MPEP 2144.04-IV-B).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumioka and Fukakusa as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Kobayashi (US 2014/0307236).
In regards to claim 4, Sumioka and Fukakusa as discussed above, but do not explicitly teach the mask frame supports a position correction mechanism configured to hold the mask in a position correctable manner.
However, Kobayashi teaches a mask table (5) with comprising a main portion-51 of Y-axis plate portions-511 and an X-axis plate portion-512 which holds a mask-120. Kobayashi teaches the position of the main portion-51 is adjusted by slider-513, connector members-514/515/516 and Y-axis driving portion-54 (position correction mechanism) (fig. 3-5; para. 25-28). Kobayashi teaches the Y-axis driving portion-54, slider-513 and connector members-514/515/516 provides pivotable movement or adjustment to the main portion-51 and the mask-120 (fig. 4-5; para. 19, 29-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the Y-axis driving portion-54, slider-513 and connector members-514/515/516 of Kobayashi onto the Y-axis frames-11e and the mask supporting mechanism of Sumioka and Fukakusa because Kobayashi teaches it will provide improvement in the quality of printing of solder (para. 72).
In regards to claim 5, Sumioka, Fukakusa and Kobayashi as discussed above, where Kobayashi teaches the Y-axis driving portion-54, slider-513 and connector members-514/515/516 changes the position of the mask-120 in a horizontal direction and a rotation angle of the screen/mask in a horizontal plane (fig. 4-5; para. 19, 29-30),
Sumioka teaches the squeegee always moves in a certain angular direction with respect to a conveying direction of the board (fig. 1-5).
In regards to claim 6, Sumioka, Fukakusa and Kobayashi as discussed above, where Sumioka teaches the squeegee always moves in direction orthogonal to the conveying direction of the board (fig. 1-5).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumioka and Fukakusa as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Sato (US 2014/0069285).
In regards to claim 7, Sumioka and Fukakusa as discussed above, but do not explicitly teach a cover frame fixedly provided on the bed, formed separately from the mask frame and the squeegee frame, and configured to hold a cover for protecting an inside of the solder printing machine in an opening and closing manner.
However Sato teaches a printing unit comprising covers-101 which is provided on a base-10 of a printing unit-90. Sato teaches the covers-101 is separate from printing mechanical part-60 and mask holding table-51 and the covers-101 protects an inside of the printing unit in an opening and closing manner (fig. 1, 4, 10; para. 24, 28, 31-32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the covers-101 of Sato onto the printing machine of Sumioka and Fukakusa because Sato teaches it will project the user and the printing unit form each other (para. 46).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see response filed July 29, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sumioka and Fukakusa.
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 Binu Thomas whose telephone number is (571)270-7684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights