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 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.
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 memory unit in claim 2.
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 2 recites “a memory unit… for memorizing the position information of the to-be removed object”. These limitations are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as a memory, a hard disk, or a register and equivalents thereof, to accomplish the claimed function (see at least [Pg. 16, Lines 5-8] of the specification of the instant application).
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 1-8, 10, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirakawa (2016/0296982, previously presented) in view of Yasuda (JP 2015207622 A) and Myers (4,658,550).
Regarding claim 1, Hirakawa teaches An electronic device (Fig. 14) for removing a to-be-removed object from a device under test ([0036]), comprising:
a working platform (Ref. 81-83, Fig. 14) for carrying the device under test (Fig. 14);
an identification unit (Ref. 71, Fig. 14) arranged above the working platform for acquiring position information of the to-be-removed object ([0042]); and
a removal unit (Ref. 72&73, Fig. 14) coupled to the identification unit (Fig. 14 shows the removal unit coupled to the identification unit via the bar (74), if applicant intended for the identification unit to be directly attached to the removal unit such a limitation is not required by the claims), and provided with a removal element (Ref. 721&722, Fig. 2, [0043]) for removing the to-be-removed object based on the position information ([0043]),
wherein the removal element has a ring structure (Ref. 731, Figs. 14-15, [0126] describes a pipe which is a ring structure) and a confinement space (Fig. 15 shows a confinement space within the removal element) connected with the ring structure (Fig. 15), and the confinement space faces the working platform (Fig. 15, [0126]);
wherein the identification unit includes a first photographing element (Ref. 711-712, Fig. 3, [0050-0052]).
Hirakawa as modified fails to explicitly teach wherein the working platform moves on a conveying track. Yasuda teaches an electronic device for removing to-be removed objections from a device under test (Fig. 1 with a working platform and a removal unit, and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Yasuda teaches an electronic device (Ref. 1, Fig. 1) with a work platform (Ref. 20, Fig. 1) that carries a device (Ref. W, Fig. 1) under test (Ref. 60, fig. 1, [0025]), wherein the working platform moves on a conveying track (Ref. 30, Fig. 1, [0029]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the electronic device, as taught by Hirakawa as modified, with a work platform to move on a conveying track, as taught by Yasuda, accurately move the device to the different stations and ensure the device is centered ([0029]).
Hirakawa as modified fails to explicitly teach a second photographing element, wherein the photographing elements are on different positions above the conveyor track. Myers teaches a device for transferring substrates to different stations and can be considered analogous art because it is reasonable pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor to efficiently move substrates. Myers teaches a first photographing element (Ref. 13a, Fig. 1) and a second photographing element (Ref. 13c, Fig. 1), and the first photographing element and the second photographing element are located at different positions on a conveying track (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the identification unit, as taught by Hirakawa, with a second photographing element, wherein the photographing elements are on different positions above the conveyor track, as taught by Myers, by duplication of parts and to allow for a representation of the substrate at any point along the conveyor ([Col. 3, Lines 59-61]).
Regarding claim 2, Hirakawa as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Hirakawa further teaches wherein the electronic device further comprises a memory unit (Ref. 62, Fig. 1) coupled to the identification unit for memorizing the position information of the to-be-removed object ([0047]).
Regarding claim 3, Hirakawa as modified teaches the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and Hirakawa further teaches wherein the first photographing element (Ref. 711-712, Fig. 3, [0050-0052]) coupled to the memory unit (Fig. 1 shows the identification unit coupled to the memory unit through the arms (74-77), [0047] describes the memory unit connected to the identification unit).
Regarding claim 4, Hirakawa as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Hirakawa further teaches wherein the removal element includes a main body portion (Ref. 72&73, Fig. 6&15) and an end portion (Ref. 41, 51, Fig. 6&15) coupled to the main body portion (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5, Hirakawa as modified teaches the limitations of claim 4, as described above, and Hirakawa further teaches wherein the main body portion is provided with a gas extraction through hole (Ref. 724, Fig. 5, [0061]) and the end portion has a gas suction through hole (end of the conduit (51) that connects to the tank (52), Fig. 6, [0071]), wherein the gas extraction through hole and the gas suction through hole are connected through a first gas passage (Ref. 51, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6, Hirakawa as modified teaches the limitations of claim 5, as described above, and Hirakawa further teaches wherein the main body portion is provided with a gas inlet through hole (Ref. 721, Fig. 5, [0061]), and the end portion has a gas ejection through hole (Fig. 6 the end of the conduit), wherein the gas inlet through hole and the gas ejection through hole are connected through a second gas passage (Ref. 41, Fig. 6, [0066]).
Regarding claim 7, Hirakawa as modified teaches the limitations of claim 4, as described above, and Hirakawa further teaches wherein the removal element further includes a joint portion (Ref. 44, Fig. 1) coupled to the end portion (41&51).
Regarding Claim 8, Hirakawa as modified teaches the limitations of claim 4, as described above, and Meyers further teaches wherein the second photographing element (Ref. 13C, fig. 1) is coupled to the memory unit ([Col. 3, Lines 59-61] describes system memory). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the removal unit, as taught by Hirakawa, with a second photographing element, as taught by Meyers, by duplication of parts.
Regarding claim 10, Hirakawa as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and given the teaching of the conveying track of Jiang, Hirakawa as modified further teaches wherein the electronic device moves the device under test from a projection position of the identification unit on the working platform in a normal direction to a projection position of the removal unit on the working platform in the normal direction (Fig. 1&2, show the device moves from a projection position (solid outline, Hirakawa) on the working platform in a normal direction from the post (76) the projection position to a projection position of the removal unit (dotted outline), Hirakawa), the conveying track (Fig. 1, Jiang).
Regarding claim 16, Hirakawa as modified teaches the limitations of claim 4, as described above, and Hirakawa further teaches wherein the removal element further includes a constriction portion (Ref. 733, fig. 15, [0126]), the constriction portion is connected between a joint portion (Fig. 15, conduit portion past the constriction portion towards the pump (732)) and the ring structure (Fig. 1), and one end of the constriction portion adjacent to the joint portion gradually narrows toward the other end adjacent to the ring structure in a vertical direction ([0126] describes a flow regulation part installed in the suction pipe).
Regarding claim 17, Hirakawa as modified teaches the limitations of claim 6, as described above, and Hirakawa further teaches wherein the main body portion is provided with an additional gas inlet through hole (Ref. 734, Fig. 15), the end portion is provided with an additional gas ejection through hole (Fig. 15 the end of the conduit (731)), and the additional gas inlet through hole is connected to the additional gas ejection through hole through an additional second gas passage (Ref. 731, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Hirakawa as modified teaches the limitations of claim 17, as described above, and Hirakawa further teaches wherein the gas ejection through hole overlaps with the additional gas ejection through hole (Fig. 15 shows the through holes overlaps in a horizontal direction).
Claims 9 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirakawa as modified as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Marquardt (2005/0227595).
Regarding Claim 9, Hirakawa as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Hirakawa further teaches wherein the working platform includes a platform surface (Ref. 81a, recessed surface in Fig. 1) but fails to explicitly teach at least two abutting and at least two alignment abutting posts and the platform surface includes a first edge, a second edge, a third edge, and a fourth edge. Marquardt teaches an electric device with a work platform and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of devices of removing objects from a device. Marquardt further teaches wherein a working platform (Ref. 134, Fig. 2) includes a platform surface (Ref. 136, Fig. 2, [0020]), at least two abutting protrusions (Ref. 146&149, Fig. 2) and at least two alignment abutting posts (Ref. 142, Fig. 2), and the platform surface includes a first edge (See annotated Fig. 3 below), a second edge (See annotated Fig. 3 below), a third edge (See annotated Fig. 3 below) and a fourth edge (See annotated Fig. 3 below), in which one of the at least two abutting protrusions (146,149) extends along the first edge in a first direction (see annotated Fig. 2 below), and the other one of the at least two abutting protrusion portions extends along the second edge in a second direction (see annotated Fig. 2 below) different from the first direction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to replace the working platform, as taught by Hirakawa, with the working platform, as taught by Marquardt, since such a modification would yield the predictable result of carrying a device.
PNG
media_image1.png
411
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 19, Hirakawa as modified teaches the limitations of claim 9, as described above, and given the teaching of the working platform of Marquardt into the Hirakawa, Marquardt further teaches wherein the platform surface is provided with at least two slots (See annotated Fig. 2-3 below), and the at least two alignment abutting posts (142) move in the at least two slots, respectively (Fig. 4-5).
PNG
media_image2.png
316
414
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 20, Hirakawa as modified teaches the limitations of claim 19, as described above, and given the teaching of the working platform of Marquardt into the Hirakawa, Marquardt further teaches wherein the working platform (134) carries a tray (Ref. 156, Fig. 2) having two edges (Fig. 3 annotated below) in contact with the at least two abutting protrusions (149, Fig. 3), respectively, and the at least two alignment abutting posts (142) move to contact another two edges of the tray (Fig. 3 annotated below), respectively.
PNG
media_image3.png
321
414
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirakawa as modified as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Asakawa (2005/0035311).
Regarding Claim 11, Hirakawa as modified teaches the limitations of claim 3, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the identification unit further includes a first vertical moving portion and a first horizontal moving portion, the first photographing element and the first horizontal moving portion are connected in a vertical direction through the first vertical moving portion , the first vertical moving portion is arranged on a first vertical sliding rail of the first horizontal moving portion and the first photographing element is connected with the first horizontal moving portion. Asakawa teaches an electronic device for removing objections and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Asakawa further teaches wherein the identification unit further includes a first vertical moving portion (Ref. 27A, Fig. 4) and a first horizontal moving portion (Fig. 4 annotated below), the first photographing element (Ref. 16, Fig. 4) and the first horizontal moving portion are connected in a vertical direction through the first vertical moving portion (Fig. 1, [0085-0086]), the first vertical moving portion is arranged on a first vertical sliding rail (Ref. 27B, Fig. 4, [0086]) of the first horizontal moving portion (Fig. 1), and the first photographing element is connected with the first horizontal moving portion (Fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the identification unit, as taught by Hirakawa, to have a first vertical moving portion and a first horizontal moving portion, as taught by Asakawa, to allow for more degrees of positioning of the identification unit and since such a modification would yield the predictable result of moving the identification unit.
PNG
media_image4.png
342
537
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, Hirakawa as modified teaches the limitations of claim 11, as described above, and Asakawa further teaches wherein the first horizontal moving portion is connected to a hanging portion (See annotated Fig. 4 above) of a first fixing base (Ref. 12A, Fig. 1), and the hanging portion is provided with a first sliding rail structure (Ref. 28, Fig. 1&4) extending along a horizontal direction (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the identification unit, as taught by Hirakawa, with a hanging portion, as taught by Asakawa, to allow for more degrees of positioning of the identification unit and since such a modification would yield the predictable result of moving the identification unit.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirakawa as modified as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Asakawa (2005/0035311).
Regarding Claim 13, Hirakawa teaches the limitations of claim 8, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the removal unit further includes a second horizontal moving portion, a connecting portion and a second vertical moving portion , the connecting portion has a second vertical sliding rail and a third vertical sliding rail respectively extending along the vertical direction, the connecting portion is connected with the second horizontal moving portion, the second photographing element is connected with the connecting portion through the second vertical sliding rail, the second vertical moving portion is connected with the connecting portion through the third vertical sliding rail, and the removal element is connected with the second vertical moving portion in a vertical direction. Asakawa teaches an electronic device for removing objections and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Asakawa further teaches wherein the removal unit further includes a second horizontal moving portion (Fig. 4 annotated below), a connecting portion (Ref. 27, Fig. 4) and a second vertical moving portion (Ref. 27A, Fig. 4), the connecting portion has a second vertical sliding rail (Ref. 27B, Fig. 4, [0086]) and a third vertical sliding rail (Ref. 27A, Fig. 4, [0086]) respectively extending along the vertical direction (Fig. 1&4), the connecting portion is connected with the second horizontal moving portion (Fig. 4), the second photographing element is connected with the connecting portion through the second vertical sliding rail (Fig. 1), the second vertical moving portion is connected with the connecting portion through the third vertical sliding rail (Fig. 4), and the removal element is connected with the second vertical moving portion in a vertical direction (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the removal unit, as taught by Hirakawa, to have a second vertical moving portion and a second horizontal moving portion, as taught by Asakawa, to allow for more degrees of positioning of the identification unit and since such a modification would yield the predictable result of moving the identification unit.
PNG
media_image5.png
342
536
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 14, Hirakawa as modified teaches the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and Asakawa further teaches wherein the second horizontal moving portion is connected with a hanging portion (See annotated Fig. 4 above) of a second fixing base (Ref. 12A, Fig. 1), and the hanging portion has a second sliding rail structure (Ref. 28, Fig. 1&4) on which the second horizontal moving portion is disposed (Fig. 1&4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the identification unit, as taught by Hirakawa, with a hanging portion, as taught by Asakawa, to allow for more degrees of positioning of the identification unit and since such a modification would yield the predictable result of moving the identification unit.
Regarding Claim 15, Hirakawa teaches the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and Hirakawa further teaches wherein the identification unit and the removal unit are integrated into one unit sharing one photographing element (Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claim have been fully considered and examiner has withdrawn the 35 USC 112(b) rejections and the 35 USC 112(f) of claim 1.
Applicant's arguments filed 01 June, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant has amended the claim thereby changing the scope of the claim necessitating a new grounds of rejection and reinterpretation of the prior art. Applicant’s arguments that the Hirano reference fails to teach the photographing elements located at different positions above the conveying track have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, Examiner has applied Hirakawa in view of Yasuda and Meyers to the 35 USC 103 rejection above. Myers teaches a first photographing element (Ref. 13a, Fig. 1) and a second photographing element (Ref. 13c, Fig. 1), and the first photographing element and the second photographing element are located at different positions on a conveying track (Fig. 1). Examiner notes that the photographing elements would be at different positions above the conveyor due to being at different angles and having two different units. If applicant intends for the different photographing elements to be at specific points along the conveyor track or specific positions relative to one another such a limitation is not required.
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 DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
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, David Posigian can be reached on (313) 446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights