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 Objections
Claim 6 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because of the phrase “according to any one of claim 1”. It should have been written as “according to claim 1”. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Appropriate correction is required.
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: “a pressurizing mechanism” in claims 1, 3, 5, and 7.
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.
Paragraph [0024] discloses the pressurizing mechanism 2 is a mechanism including the diaphragm 21, and capable of applying pressure to a back surface 102b of the joining target 102 using the diaphragm 21 from an opposite side to the table 112. In the present embodiment, the pressurizing mechanism 2 is composed of the diaphragm 21, and a driving unit 22 that actuates the diaphragm 21. Particulars thereof will be described below.
Paragraph [0026] discloses the driving unit 22 transmits pressure to the diaphragm 21 using a pressure medium 221, thereby actuating the diaphragm 21. More specifically, the pressure medium 221 is packed in between the diaphragm 21 and the top plate 122 inside the second chamber structure unit 12. The driving unit 22 changes pressure to be applied to the pressure medium 221, thereby actuating the diaphragm 21 through the pressure medium 221. Here, the pressure medium 221 may be liquid or gas.
Paragraph [0037] discloses in the above-described configuration with the heater 4, liquid is preferable to gas for the pressure medium 221. The reason for this is that, as liquid has higher heat conductivity than gas, heat is exchanged more efficiently between the heat exchange part 41 and the diaphragm 21 through the pressure medium 221, thereby facilitating transmission of heat of the heater 4 to the diaphragm 21.
Paragraph [0046] discloses the pressurizing mechanism 7 includes a pressure- contact unit 71 with the pressure-contact surface 71a, and a driving unit 72. The pressure-contact unit 71 is provided at each of places of the second chuck unit 52 facing the through holes 51c. The pressure-contact unit 71 is provided movably in a direction perpendicular to the lower surface 521a of the base body 521 (here, vertical direction), and is movable to a protruding position where the pressure-contact surface 71a protrudes downward from the lower surface 521a of the base body 521. The driving unit 72 is an air cylinder, for example, and allows pressurization to a target brought into contact with the pressure-contact surface 71a.In the present embodiment, the driving unit 72 biases the pressure- contact unit 71 downward to move the pressure-contact unit 71 to the protruding position.
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "13" and "22" have both been used to designate “a driving unit”. 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. 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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "2" and "7" have both been used to designate “a pressurizing mechanism”. 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. 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 1-7 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.
Regarding claim 1, recites the limitation "the joining target" at lines 8 and 12 in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear and indefinite to the relationship between “the joining target” and “two joining targets” at line 2 and to whether they are the same or different. Further clarification is required to either further differentiate (the joining target) or provide proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 5, recites the limitation "the joining target" at line 15 in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear and indefinite to the relationship between “the joining target” and “two joining targets” at line 2 and to whether they are the same or different. Further clarification is required to either further differentiate (the joining target) or provide proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 7, recites the limitation "the joining target" at lines 9 and 16 in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear and indefinite to the relationship between “the joining target” and “two joining targets” at line 2 and to whether they are the same or different. Further clarification is required to either further differentiate (the joining target) or provide proper antecedent basis.
The dependent claims are rejected for their inherited deficiencies on rejected independent claims 1 and 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 20110309057) in view of Kinoshita (US 20150352672).
Regarding to claim 1, Lin discloses a joining apparatus 100, 300 (figs. 4, 5, i.e. called a laser heating apparatus) that connects a first metal layer (202, 402 )and a second metal layer (206, 406) formed on respective joint surfaces of two joining targets (204, 108, 404, 308) to each other through joining using laser light (not labeled, see figure 4, i.e. indicated by an arrow), thereby joining the joint surfaces of the two joining targets to each other, the joining apparatus comprising (¶ 0012):
a table (102, 302) having permeability (1024, i.e. a hole) to the laser light and on which the two joining targets are to be placed while the first metal layer (202, 402) and the second metal layer (206, 406) face each other (¶ 0034);
a pressurizing mechanism (104, 304) including a diaphragm, and capable of applying pressure to a back surface of the joining target using the diaphragm from an opposite side to the table (102, 302) (¶ 0010, 0038);
a laser light source (106) that emits the laser light (not labeled, see figure 4, i.e. indicated by an arrow) (¶ 0035); and
Lin discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for a controller that brings the first metal layer and the second metal layer into contact with each other by applying pressure to the back surface of the joining target using the diaphragm while the two joining targets are placed on the table, and while maintaining the resultant state, applies the laser light to a place of contact between the first metal layer and the second metal layer through the table.
However, Kinoshita teaches a controller (60, i.e. a control unit) that brings the first metal layer (21) and the second metal layer (22) into contact with each other by applying pressure to the back surface of the joining target (71, 72) using the diaphragm while the two joining targets (71, 72) are placed on the table, and while maintaining the resultant state, applies the laser light (51) to a place of contact between the first metal layer (21) and the second metal layer (22) through the table (¶ 0010, 0033).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of joining/welding/bonding metal members. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lin and Kinoshita before him or her, to include such controller of Kinoshita because it holds the one metal member superposed on the other metal member with the protrusion therebetween while maintaining the positions of the plurality of metal members in the in-plane direction with the jig unit, and irradiates the laser light from the laser irradiation unit to perform welding. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it maintains the position in the in-plane direction, and laser light is irradiated on the superposed region to weld the plurality of metal members to each other (abstract).
With respect to claim 2, Lin in view of Kinoshita discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Lin further discloses a heater (15, 17, 26) that heats the joining targets (2), wherein during application of the laser light (i.e. a laser beam) to the contact place, the controller causes the heater (15, 17, 26) to heat the joining targets (2) at a temperature lower than a temperature required for the joining using the laser light (i.e. a laser beam) (¶ 0005, 0007, 0035).
With respect to claim 3, Lin in view of Kinoshita discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Kinoshita further discloses wherein a pressure medium (114, 194, 204) through which pressure is transmitted to the diaphragm in the pressurizing mechanism is liquid (i.e. fluid pressure) (¶ 0137, 0165-0166), and the heater is arranged on an opposite side to the table with respect to the diaphragm and the pressure medium (114, 194, 204) is interposed between the heater and the diaphragm (¶ 0075).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lin and Kinoshita before him or her, to include such pressure medium of Kinoshita because it holds the one metal member superposed on the other metal member with the protrusion therebetween while maintaining the positions of the plurality of metal members in the in-plane direction with the jig unit, and irradiates the laser light from the laser irradiation unit to perform welding. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it maintains the position in the in-plane direction, and laser light is irradiated on the superposed region to weld the plurality of metal members to each other (abstract).
With respect to claim 4, Lin in view of Kinoshita discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Lin further discloses wherein the heater (15, 17, 26) is a heat exchanger that uses constant-temperature water adjusted to a predetermined temperature as a heating medium (i.e. gas) (¶ 0005-0008, 0010, 046).
Claim(s) 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over over Lin (US 20110309057) in view of Kinoshita (US 20150352672) and Tsuno et al. (US 20150249026).
Regarding claim 5, Lin in view of Kinoshita discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1 (same features) including of which Lin further discloses a first chuck unit (12, i.e. a suction nozzle) including a suction surface (i.e. a suction surface part P) to which a back surface of one of the two joining targets (P i.e. called a part) is to be sucked (¶ 0004, 0006-0009); an alignment mechanism (8, i.e. an alignment unit 8) that adjusts the positions of the two joining targets relative to each other in such a manner as to locate the first metal layer (13) and the second metal layer (14) in a facing relationship while the two joining targets are sucked to the first chuck unit (12) and the second chuck unit (¶ 0007-0009), except for a second chuck unit including a suction surface to which a back surface of the other of the two joining targets is to be sucked.
However, Tsuno et al. teaches a second chuck unit 40a/8a (fig. 1, i.e. called a target moving mechanism/the target holding substrate) including a suction surface (see figure 1) to which a back surface (not labeled) of the other of the two joining targets (7) is to be sucked (¶ 0053).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of bonding/joining apparatus. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lin in view of Kinoshita and Tsuno before him or her, to include such holding element of Tsuno because the positions and orientations of the target holding substrates and so as to control the thickness of the intermediate layer formed on the substrate surface in the direction orthogonal to the substrate surface, the uniformity of the thickness, and the uniformity of the concentrations of materials of the intermediate layer. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it improves the manufacturing yield of the devices using the substrates bonded though the room-temperature bonding and the reliability of the devices. It is possible to reduce a possibility that the manufacturing line of the devices using the substrates bonded by the room-temperature bonding is polluted with the impurity (¶ 0034).
With respect to claim 6, Lin in view of Kinoshita and Tsuno discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Tsuno further discloses wherein the joining apparatus adjusts (i.e. a bonding apparatus) the positions of the two joining targets (7) relative to each other and performs preliminary joining intended to maintain the adjusted relative positions before the joining at the joining apparatus according to claims 1 (¶ 0031, 0050, 0060-0061).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lin in view of Kinoshita and Tsuno before him or her, to include such an adjustment arrangements of Tsuno because the positions and orientations of the target holding substrates and so as to control the thickness of the intermediate layer formed on the substrate surface in the direction orthogonal to the substrate surface, the uniformity of the thickness, and the uniformity of the concentrations of materials of the intermediate layer. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it improves the manufacturing yield of the devices using the substrates bonded though the room-temperature bonding and the reliability of the devices. It is possible to reduce a possibility that the manufacturing line of the devices using the substrates bonded by the room-temperature bonding is polluted with the impurity (¶ 0034).
With respect to claim 7, Lin in view of Kinoshita and Tsuno discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above in combination of claims 1 and 5 (same features).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Reis (US 20050205533).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KET D DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/KET D DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761