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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 1 is blurry and the text is illegible. 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 16 states: wherein a degradation accelerated coefficient or a degradation activation energy estimation value is received based on a highest test temperature permissible for the specimen, an actual or estimated use temperature, an anticipated or expected thermal degradation time or degradation lifespan at the actual use temperature, and a high-temperature test temperature performed by an acceleration test, and a temperature stage of the thermal degradation test, an individual test temperature of each stage, a test time for each specimen given for each test temperature, and a specimen discharge interval in a total test time are calculated
However, it is not clear to a person having ordinary skill in the art how to determine a degradation accelerated coefficient. The amount of direction provided by the inventor, the breadth of the claims, the state of the prior art, and the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure amounts to undue experimentation.
The disclosure only states that it is based on “a highest test temperature permissible for the specimen, an actual or estimated use temperature, an anticipated or expected thermal degradation time or degradation lifespan at the actual use temperature, and a high-temperature test temperature performed by an acceleration test, and a temperature stage of the thermal degradation test, an individual test temperature of each stage, a test time for each specimen given for each test temperature, and a specimen discharge interval in a total test time are calculated”. The claims include numerous variables and no clear manner of how they relate to a degradation accelerated coefficient. The state of the prior art provides no clarity on what the degradation accelerated coefficient is, how it is determined, or how it is used. A person having ordinary skill in the art would need to use all listed variables in combination to determine an unspecified value. Therefore, claim 16 does not comply with the enablement requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheong et al. (KR20110077342, translation provided by examiner).
Claim 1: Cheong discloses an automated test device for a complex accelerated degradation test, the automated test device comprising: a plurality of chambers (chambers 20, 30) having a test space formed therein to accommodate a specimen (specimen 500) and including a door (door 22, 32) for inserting the specimen into the test space or discharging the specimen from the test space and an environmental test parameter (temperature is the adjusted/controlled parameter) configured to adjust an internal environment; a transfer unit (transfer unit 10) provided to insert or discharge specimens into or from each of the chambers (Page 3, lines 9-11: The transfer unit 10 includes a stage 11 on which the test piece 500 is mounted, And a driving unit 13 that moves the stage 11 and the driving unit 13 can be transferred into the first chamber 20 and the second chamber 30 along the rail 40.); and a controller (control unit 400) configured to control the door and the transfer unit (page 4, lines 10-12: The operating time of the gas supplying unit 120 and the gas discharging unit 300, The opening and closing operations of the doors 22 and 32, the first and second temperatures, the thermal shock time (holding time), and the number of thermal shocks are controlled by the control unit 400), wherein the plurality of chambers are each controlled to different environments (The first chamber 20 is maintained at a first temperature and the second chamber 30 is maintained at a second temperature).
Claim 7: Cheong discloses the automated test device of claim 1, further comprising: a casing (case 100) accommodating the plurality of chambers (chambers 20,30) and the transfer unit (transfer unit 10 and stage 11), wherein the casing includes an air circulation device or air conditioning device so that an internal environment maintains a constant state (the case 100 has a maintained temperature, page 3, lines 14-16).
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) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheong.
Claim 2: Cheong teaches the test device of claim 1, wherein the door includes: an outer door (case 100) configured to insert the specimen from the outside or discharge the specimen to the outside, and an inner door (doors 22, 32) provided in the test device and configured to insert the specimen (sample 500) into the test space (chamber 20 or 30) or discharge the specimen from the test space by the transfer unit (see Fig. 1), wherein the transfer unit automatically inserts or discharges individual specimens into or from each of the chambers through a passage connecting the inner doors respectively provided in the chambers (the transfer unit 10 moves through the chambers 20, 30 within the case 100).
Cheong fails to teach the outer door is manually opened and closed to be used for inspection and repair according to device malfunction.
However, it is clear to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the case 100 must be opened or accessible in a way that the specimen (sample 500) can be inserted into the case 100 and onto the stage 11 of the transfer unit 10. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a door as part of the case 100 for the obvious benefit of accessing the interior without completely removing the case.
Claim 3: Cheong discloses the device of claim 1, further comprising: a storage chamber (case 100) including a test space, for storing a pre-test specimen or tested specimen, and an environmental test parameter configured to maintain an internal environment in a certain standard environment (the case is supplied with inter gas from the gas inlet 120), wherein the controller inserts the pre-test specimen of the storage chamber into each chamber through the transfer unit or transfers and inserts the tested specimen into the storage chamber from each chamber (the specimen 500 follows steps 1-7, page 3, lines 19- page 4 line 8).
Cheong fails to teach the storage chamber formed in any one of the plurality of chambers and including a door for inserting or discharging the specimen.
However, a controlled space is taught by Cheong via the first and second chambers 20, 30 as well as the case 100. The specimen 500 is capable of moving between chambers and outside of the chambers into the case 100 via the transfer unit 10. Creating an additional chamber for storage would be duplicating the chambers 20, 30 to create a third controlled environment that performs the function of the case 100. Therefore, the use of a storage chamber would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention in order to prevent oxidation of the specimen 500.
Claim 4: Cheong teaches the automated test device of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the environmental test parameter of the other of the plurality of chambers maintains the internal environment in a certain standard environment so that any one of the plurality of chambers stores the tested specimen after the test is terminated, and the controller inserts the tested specimen into the other of the plurality of chambers through the transfer unit.
However, a controlled space is taught by Cheong via the first and second chambers 20, 30 as well as the case 100. The specimen 500 is capable of moving between chambers and outside of the chambers into the case 100 via the transfer unit 10. Creating an additional chamber for storage would be duplicating the chambers 20, 30 to create a third controlled environment that performs the function of the case 100. Therefore, the use of a storage chamber would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention in order to prevent oxidation of the specimen 500.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheong in view of Yap et al. (US20150135862) further in view of Suyama et al. (JP201357421, translation provided)
Claim 5: Cheong teaches the automated test device of claim 1, including wherein the first chamber 20 is held at a different temperature than the second chamber 30 (page 3, line 24- page 4 line 5), but fails to teach wherein the chamber includes: a first chamber which is a high-temperature test chamber controlled in temperature from 70° to 290°C; and a second chamber which is a climatic chamber for temperature and humidity reliability testing controlled in relative humidity from 20% to 95% in a range of 10° to 90°C.
However, Yap teaches an accelerated life testing device 100 which controls an atmosphere to a first temperature (first atmosphere is 70°C [0028]) and a second atmosphere having an increasing humidity ([0031]). Yap teaches that the accelerated aging process can include increasing and/or decreasing temperature and/or humidity. Therefore, it is known to change the atmosphere/environment, including both temperature and humidity, in order to accelerate aging of a test piece.
Both Cheong and Yap are directed to accelerated aging by controlling the environment. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teachings of Yap with the device of Cheong in order to maximize the flexibility of the device in order test more variable conditions.
Cheong in view of Yap fails to teach a first chamber which is a high-temperature test chamber controlled in temperature from 70° to 290°C; and a second chamber which is a climatic chamber for temperature and humidity reliability testing controlled in relative humidity from 20% to 95% in a range of 10° to 90°C.
However, Suyama teaches a thermal shock test apparatus 3 which performs thermal cycling (top page 7) including a first temperature of 60-200°C and a second temperature of 0-70 °C.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the temperature ranges taught by Suyama with the device of Cheong in order to perform thermal cycling operations (Suyama, top page 7).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheong in view of Suyama.
Claim 6: Cheong teaches the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the chamber includes: a first chamber which is a high-temperature test chamber controlled in temperature from 70 to 290°C.; and a second chamber which is a low-temperature test chamber controlled in temperature from -40 to 180°C.
However, Suyama teaches a thermal shock test apparatus 3 which performs thermal cycling (top page 7) including a first temperature of 60-200°C and a second temperature of 0-70 °C.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the temperature ranges taught by Suyama with the device of Cheong in order to perform thermal cycling operations (Suyama, top page 7).
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheong in view of Choi et al. (KR 101904000, English translation provided)
Claim 8: Cheong teaches the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the plurality of chambers include a heat deflection test tool configured to measure thermal deformation of the specimen, and the controller stops the test operation when detecting thermal deformation through the heat deflection test tool.
However, Choi teaches testing thermophysical properties of a material (material piece 2) within a main body 11 of a furnace 10, wherein the property of the material is detected using heat deflecting tool (a strain gauge 50).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a heat deflection tool, as taught by Choi, with the device of Cheong in order to accurately measure the thermal properties of the material under test (Choi [0012]).
Claim 12: Cheong teaches the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the chamber is coated with fluororesin, fluororesin film, fluororesin composite, or ceramic.
However, Choi teaches testing thermophysical properties of a material (material piece 2) within a main body 11 of a furnace 10, wherein the furnace is made of ceramic (Choi [0020]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a ceramic material for the chamber in order to utilize a material with high heat resistance (Choi [0020]) thereby preventing degradation of the chamber due to high heat.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheong in view of Stagg et al. (US20190058979).
Claim 9: Cheong teaches the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the plurality of chambers further include a gas sensor configured to detect combustion of the specimen, and the controller stops test operation when combustion is detected through the gas sensor.
However, Stagg teaches a remote diagnostic system including for use with a thermal shock chamber [0042] including a gas sensor (CO2 sensors [0044]) for detecting when system parameters are outside of an acceptable range and subsequently controlling the system when an alert is determined [0021].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the sensors of Stagg with the device of Cheong in order to allow control processes to be performed, if needed, especially when the sensors measure parameters or conditions that are considered to be outside of acceptable limits (Stagg [0004]).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheong in view of Hosokawa et al. (US6205870).
Claim 10: Cheong teaches the automated test device of claim 1, wherein the chamber includes a stage (stage 11), on which the specimen is mounted (see Fig. 1), but fails to teach a cartridge, slidably coupled in a horizontal direction on the stage, and the stage has a disc shape to be rotatable about a rotation axis, and the cartridge is radially disposed in a circumferential direction of the stage.
However, Hosokawa teaches an automated substrate processing system which includes automated transfer of substrates 11 in a cartridge (cassette 28-34) from a load station 12 to a lock chamber 14, 16 or processing chamber 18-26. The substrates 11 are slidably coupled in order to allow the substrate to be removed from the cassette, Fig. 1A, and the cartridges are spaced apart by a predetermined distance in a longitudinal direction of the stage (load station 12 and cassettes 18-34). Hosokawa fails to teach the stage having a disk shape. However, the change in shape does not result in any new or unexpected result. The substrates 11 and cassettes 28-34 interact with the transfer arm 36 to be moved to a process chamber. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use any suitable shape to hold the pre-test specimen for automated transfer and loading.
The nature of the problem to be solved- automatic sample transfer and loading- would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to choose an appropriate movement device and corresponding loading arrangement. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teachings of Hosokawa with the device of Cheong for the obvious benefit of reducing human error by automating the transfer of samples.
Claim 11: Cheong discloses the automated test device of claim 1, wherein the chamber includes a stage (stage 11), on which the specimen is mounted (see Fig. 1), but fails to teach a cartridge, on which the specimen is mounted, slidably coupled in a horizontal direction on the stage, and the cartridges are spaced apart from each other by a predetermined distance in a longitudinal direction of the stage.
However, Hosokawa teaches an automated substrate processing system which includes automated transfer of substrates 11 in a cartridge (cassette 28-34) from a load station 12 to a lock chamber 14, 16 or processing chamber 18-26. The substrates 11 are slidably coupled in order to allow the substrate to be removed from the cassette, Fig. 1A, and the cartridges are spaced apart by a predetermined distance in a longitudinal direction of the stage (load station 12 and cassettes 18-34).
The nature of the problem to be solved- automatic sample transfer and loading- would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to choose an appropriate movement device and corresponding loading arrangement. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teachings of Hosokawa with the device of Cheong for the obvious benefit of reducing human error by automating the transfer of samples.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheong in view of Yap.
Claim 13: Cheong teaches a test method using an automated test device for a complex accelerated degradation test of claim 1 the test method comprising: a high-temperature thermal degradation test mode in which the second chamber is maintained under a room temperature condition of 30°C. or less, the first chamber is maintained in a high-temperature environment, and the thermally degraded specimen is sequentially transferred to the second chamber at room temperature at every determined time according to required test conditions (steps 1-6: the specimen 500 is transferred to the first chamber 20 of -50-1000 °C, step 4 the specimen is sequentially transferred to second chamber of 100-1600 °C).
Cheong fails to teach a temperature/humidity exposure test mode in which the first chamber is maintained at a room temperature condition of 30°C. or less, and the second chamber is implemented with a constant temperature and humidity control function capable of controlling temperature and humidity of the second chamber to satisfy the 85°C./85% RH test condition, so that, after a temperature and humidity exposure test is performed in the second chamber, the specimen, on which the exposure test is terminated, is transferred to the first chamber under room temperature conditions for a determined time according to the test conditions.
However, Yap teaches accelerated life testing using both temperature and humidity which are used to expose a test piece 102 to various atmospheres and that the atmospheres can be applied in any suitable combination of temperature and humidity [0031]. The process is performed via changing the atmosphere within the test chamber.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teachings of Yap with the device of Cheong in order to effectively determine how potential oxidation affects the test subject (Yap, col. 1, lines 46-48).
Claim 14: Cheong in view of Yap teaches the test method of claim 13. Cheong teaches a thermal shock test mode in which the first chamber is operated under a high-temperature condition and the second chamber is operated under a low-temperature condition necessary for a thermal shock test, and an individual specimen is repeatedly moved between the first chamber under a high-temperature condition and the second chamber under a low-temperature condition according to a determined period at a predetermined time according to test design conditions (steps 1-6: the specimen 500 is transferred to the first chamber 20 of -50-1000 °C, step 4 the specimen is sequentially transferred to second chamber of 100-1600 °C. steps 2 to 5 are repeatedly performed a predetermined number of times and the low temperature and high temperature are repeatedly applied to the specimen 500 (page 4, lines 4-6).
Claim 15: Cheong is view of Yap teaches the test method of claim 13, wherein a test time for each specimen for each individual test temperature within a temperature range between highest and lowest temperatures of a test temperature at which a degradation test is to be performed and a calculated test temperature range is controlled through the controller (page 4, lines 10-12: The operating time of the gas supplying unit 120 and the gas discharging unit 300, The opening and closing operations of the doors 22 and 32, the first and second temperatures, the thermal shock time (holding time), and the number of thermal shocks are controlled by the control unit 400), and chamber insertion and discharge time for each individual specimen are automatically determined (Cheong uses a predetermined time in steps 4-6.) Therefore, the control unit must include stored information including duration and temperature conditions for sample which must be calculated and input by a user to create the controller).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheong in view of Yap further in view of Hobbs (US5675098).
Claim 19: Cheong is view of Yap teaches the test method of claim 13, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the thermal degradation test is conducted at least two different temperatures within an allowable test temperature range, and an optimal combination of an order of setting and changing a test temperature of each chamber, a test time for each specimen in an individual chamber, and test order is designed so that the entire thermal degradation test is completed within a minimum test time according to the number of chambers provided in the device and the stage of each test temperature.
However, Hobbs teaches thermal testing wherein a subject is exposed to different environments (screening compartments) and is monitored through the process (col. 13, lines 40-58). Hobbs teaches that it is known to optimize the process by reducing time thus making the process more efficient (col. 2, lines 26-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use existing data (monitoring) to optimize (reduce) the test time and thereby make the device more efficient.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-18, 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art includes Cheong and Yap.
Cheong teaches thermal testing of a test specimen through an automated conveyor which moves a sample between a first and second chamber 20, 30 and an inert atmosphere case 100 wherein the chambers expose the sample to different atmospheres/environments using automation. Yap teaches a single chamber which exposes a sample to various atmospheres by changing the atmosphere, including temperature and humidity, within the chamber 110. Cheong in view of Yap teaches the method of claim 13, but fails to teach, suggest, or make obvious (claim 17) wherein the controller performs, after the test starts, a process of correcting or supplementing an error of test conditions in progress during testing by a method of inputting an intermediate measurement value of the test in progress before the test is terminated to improve design completeness of the thermal degradation test.
(claim 18) wherein, when the thermal deformation temperature of the specimen measured in real time is higher than a highest test temperature input before the test, the highest test temperature is corrected to a thermal deformation temperature measured in real time, and the test conditions are corrected before or during the thermal degradation test to perform the test under the changed conditions.
(claim 20) wherein, when excessive thermal decomposition or volatile gas occurs due to degradation beyond an allowable level in the thermal degradation test, the test is stopped to lower a temperature of the test chamber to room temperature, and the specimens under the corresponding test conditions are moved to a specimen preservation chamber.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN MORELLO whose telephone number is (313)446-6583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/JEAN F MORELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2855 9/10/25
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855