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 with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 24 October, 2024 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue burden on the examiner to consider all claims in the single application. This is not found persuasive because since the search for group II would require a search for the robotic arm as well as the dual track system in areas H01L21/687,68707 and B25J11/0095 that is not required for the species of group I. Applicant has not provided any evidence nor identify such evidence now of record showing that these two species are obvious variants nor clearly admit on the record that this is the case.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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: an identification unit in claim 1 and 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 1 recites “an identification unit… for acquiring position information”. These limitations are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as a photographic element , charge coupled device, or complementary metal oxide semiconductor and equivalents thereof, to accomplish the claimed function (see at least [Pg. 9, Lines 17-18 & pg. 11, Lines 7-10] of the specification of the instant application).
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 § 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 8, 12-15, and 16 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.
Claim 8 recites “the memory unit”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if applicant intends for claim 8 to depend on claim 2 or if applicant intends for a new structure. For purpose of examination examiner interprets the limitation as “a memory unit”.
Claims 12 and 14 recites “arranged to be connected”. It is unclear to the examiner as to whether the first horizontal moving portion is actually connected to a hanging portion. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as “connected”.
Claim 16 recites “the joint portion” and “the vertical direction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination examiner interprets the limitation as “a joint portion” and “a vertical portion”.
Claim 16 recites “a ring structure”. It is unclear to the examiner if applicant intends for the limitation to be a new structure or referring to the previous structure
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected due to being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 10, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirakawa (2016/0296982).
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]).
Regarding claim 2, Hirakawa teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and 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 teaches the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and further teaches wherein the identification unit includes a 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 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and 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 teaches the limitations of claim 4, as described above, and 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 teaches the limitations of claim 5, as described above, and 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 teaches the limitations of claim 4, as described above, and further teaches wherein the removal element further includes a joint portion (Ref. 44, Fig. 1) coupled to the end portion (41&51).
Regarding claim 10, Hirakawa teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and 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) 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)), via at least one conveying track (Ref. 74, Fig. 1, [0045]).
Regarding claim 16, Hirakawa teaches the limitations of claim 4, as described above, and further teaches wherein the removal element further includes a constriction portion (Ref. 733, fig. 15, [0126]) and a ring structure (Ref. 731, Fig. 15), the constriction portion is connected between the 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 the vertical direction ([0126] describes a flow regulation part installed in the suction pipe).
Regarding claim 17, Hirakawa teaches the limitations of claim 6, as described above, and 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 teaches the limitations of claim 17, as described above, and 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).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirakawa as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Hirano (2014/0199635).
Regarding Claim 8, Hirakawa teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the removal unit further includes a second photographing element coupled to the memory unit. Hirano teaches an electronic device for removing objections and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Hirano further teaches wherein the removal unit further includes a second photographing element (Ref. 10, fig. 1, [0030]) coupled to the memory unit (Ref. 15, [0032]). 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 Hirano, by duplication of parts and to improve the removal unit to measure, focus, and position the removal unit ([0030]).
Claims 9 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirakawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Marquardt (2005/0227595).
Regarding Claim 9, Hirakawa 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 applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Asakawa (2005/0035311).
Regarding Claim 11, Hirakawa 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 arranged to be 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 arranged to be 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sato (2014/0261586), Itai (2010/0081096), and Takeishi (2007/0030465) teaches electric devices for removing a to-be-removed object from a device under test with a working platform and can be considered analogous art.
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