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 without traverse of Group I, (claims 1-2, 4-7) in the reply filed on 5/28/26 is acknowledged. Claims 8-12, 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention II-III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse.
An OA on the merits of claims 1-2, 4-7 as following:
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 claimed “third mechanism” (claim 2, lines 1-2) 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 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 2, 4-7 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.
It is unclear as to exactly what applicant intend to claimed “a third mechanism” (claim 2, lines 1-2) appears to be vague, indefinite, and/or unclear since the specification lacking of details of such structure feature. At best in ¶ [0005] discloses the terms or phrase of “a third mechanism “, however, no details and/or reference show in the provided drawings in connection to above mechanism /structure (see also drawing objection to above).
The phrase or terms:” any one or a combination of a permanent magnet, an electromagnet, and a magnetic body” (claim 4, lines 2-3) is unclear as to what exactly what applicant referring to as “any one or” should be deleted. Since, applicant intends to claimed a device therefore above related feature must be clearly defined.
It is unclear as to how a feature of “removal mechanism” recited in claim 5 in connection to the rest of the structures in base claim 1, since no link between them.
Similar to claim 5 applied to claim 6 since no link or connection between claim 6 and base claim 1.
“one or both of” (claim 7, line 2 should be deleted for clarity of structure feature formats.
Further, it is unclear as to whether or not “an inspection unit” (see claim 6, line 2, and claim 7 lines 1-2) is a part of the claimed device, since, there is lacking of interconnection between “the inspection unit “and the structure features as set forth in the base claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Dai et al (US 20130302935). In an alternatively, Claim(s) 1-2, 4 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al in view of Yoshihiro (JP 2011193289A).
Dai et al discloses the claimed a pin arrangement device of the present invention, comprising:
a storage portion 105 in which a pin arrangement array body having a plurality of holes (as recesses) is disposed (see Fig.; and
a mechanism 102 for inserting pins 10’s into the holes of the pin arrangement array body disposed in the storage portion 105, wherein
PNG
media_image1.png
297
467
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the mechanism 102 includes a first mechanism 104 that vibrates the storage portion 102 and a second mechanism 106a that applies a magnetic field to the pin arrangement array body 105 (see Figs. 2B, or related embodiment of Figs 3A-3B, respectively).
PNG
media_image2.png
400
622
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the first mechanism includes a swing mechanism 106 that swings the storage portion 105 and a vibration mechanism 104 that vibrates the storage portion in a vertical direction or a horizontal direction (see Fig. 3A depict the coordinator X-Z for vertical or horizontal direction).
Note that 106 of the Dai et al as broadly as readable as the claimed swing mechanism (see swing by rotation arrow).
If it is argued that the Dai et al does not teach the swing mechanism then refer to 17A-B of the Yoshihiro for such teaching in term of swing arrow shows in Fig. 17B. thus, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary sill n the art at the effective filing date of the invention to employ the Yoshihiro’s teaching as noted above onto invention of Dai et al in order to obtain the device includes the feature as mentioned above
As applied to claim 2 as best understood is met by the above reference where 108 readable as the claimed third mechanism.
As applied to claim 4 refer to 106a which is in form of a magnet body.
As applied to claim 5, refer to the supporting structure (under 105) equivalent to the claimed “removing mechanism”.
As applied to claim 6-as best understood is met by the Dai et al in light of the discussion in col. 8, lines 41-43, for the teaching of an inspection unit such as an automatic optical inspection (AOI), respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
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, Thomas J Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/MINH N TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
mt
Prosecution Insights