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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Consideration of the prior art of Van De Rijdt (US20020088107A1) in the IDS filed on 9/24/2025, after the mailing of a Notice of Allowance on 9/8/2025, has led to a reopening of prosecution.
The Notice of Allowance filed on 9/8/2025 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
For the claim set filed on 6/18/2025, amendments to claims 1, 11 and 12 are acknowledged.
The previous objections to claims 11 and 12 have been corrected; the claim objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 have been considered but are moot because arguments pertain to claim 1, and the new ground of rejection for claim 1 does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 3 & 8 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 3 is indefinite as it recites ‘further comprising a first linear bearing coupled to the rotary module and the first portion of the shaft’; however, this first linear bearing contains the elements of the ‘linear bearing’ in claim 1, so it is unclear if these are two distinct bearings or the same.
For the sake of compact prosecution, ‘the first linear bearing’ in claim 3 will be examined as being the ‘linear bearing’ in claim 1. Claim 3 will be examined as “The bonding tool according to claim 1, wherein a first linear bearing … and further comprising a second linear bearing…”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the first linear bearing" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It is unclear if ‘the first linear bearing’ in claim 8 is intended to be the ‘linear bearing’ in claim 1; or if it is intended to be dependent to claim 3, which cites ‘a first linear bearing’.
For the sake of compact prosecution, ‘the first linear bearing’ in claim 8 will be examined as the ‘linear bearing’ in claim 1.
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 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.
(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 1-2, 8 & 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van De Rijdt (US20020088107A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
1. A bonding tool comprising: a shaft, a rotary module coupled to a first portion of the shaft via a linear bearing, a rotary motion actuator operatively connected to the rotary module and operative to drive the rotary module and the shaft to rotate about a rotary axis extending substantially along a central axis of the shaft, a linear motion module coupled to a second portion of the shaft via a rotary bearing, the second portion of the shaft being separate from the first portion, and a linear motion actuator operatively connected to the linear motion module and operative to drive the linear motion module and the shaft to move in directions parallel to the rotary axis.
With respect to claim 1, the prior art of Van De Rijdt teaches a bonding tool (Fig. 1) comprising: a shaft (Fig. 1, item 8), a rotary module (Fig. 1, items 2, 2a) coupled to a first portion of the shaft via a linear ball bearing (Fig. 1, item 1), a rotary motion actuator (Fig. 1, items 3, 4, 5) operatively connected to the rotary module and operative to drive the rotary module and the shaft to rotate about a rotary axis extending substantially along a central axis of the shaft [0017, 0026], a linear motion module (Fig. 1, item 12) coupled to a second portion of the shaft via a rotary bearing (Fig. 1, items 21a-c), the second (upper) portion of the shaft being separate from the first (lower) portion, and a linear motion actuator (Fig. 1, items 9, 10, 11) operatively connected to the linear motion module and operative to drive the linear motion module and the shaft to move in directions parallel to the rotary axis [0015, 0020].
2. The bonding tool according to claim 1, further comprising a first rotary bearing coupled to the rotary module to guide the rotary module to rotate about the rotary axis, and a second rotary bearing coupled to the second portion of the shaft to guide the shaft to rotate about the rotary axis.
With respect to claim 2, Van De Rijdt teaches a first rotary bearing (Fig. 1, items 6) coupled to the rotary module to guide the rotary module to rotate about the rotary axis [0017], and a second rotary bearing (Fig. 1, items 2a-c) coupled to the second (upper) portion of the shaft to guide the shaft to rotate about the rotary axis [0020].
8. The bonding tool according to claim 1, wherein the
With respect to claim 8, Van De Rijdt teaches the linear bearing comprises a ball spline [0019].
10. The bonding tool according to claim 1, further comprising an outer housing in which the rotary motion actuator and the linear motion actuator are fixedly installed.
With respect to claim 10, Van De Rijdt teaches an outer frame (Fig. 1, item 25) in which the rotary motion actuator and the linear motion actuator are fixedly installed.
11. The bonding tool according to claim 10, wherein the outer housing includes a first housing portion and a second housing portion connected to each other, the first housing portion being configured for housing the rotary module, the rotary motion actuator and the first portion of the shaft, and the second housing portion being configured for housing the linear motion module, the linear motion actuator and the second portion of the shaft.
With respect to claim 11, Van De Rijdt teaches the outer housing (Fig. 1, item 25) includes a first housing portion and a second housing portion connected to each other, the first housing (lower) portion being configured for housing the rotary module, the rotary motion actuator and the first portion of the shaft, and the second housing (upper) portion being configured for housing the linear motion module, the linear motion actuator and the second portion of the shaft [0015-0017, 0026].
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van De Rijdt (US20020088107A1), as set forth in the rejection of claim 1. Claim elements are presented in italics.
12. The bonding tool according to claim 10, further comprising a linear encoder installed on the outer housing and coupled to the linear motion module, a linear scale of the linear encoder being linearly movable with the linear motion module for determining a linear position of the shaft.
With respect to claim 12, Van De Rijdt teaches a ‘linear measuring system’ comprising a reading head, and coupled to the linear motion module (Fig. 1, item 12), a linear scale, or ruler (Fig. 1, item 14), of the linear measuring system being linearly movable with the linear motion module for determining a linear position of the shaft [0015].
Van De Rijdt is silent on the term ‘encoder’ for the linear measuring system.
However, this linear measuring system comprising a reading head in close proximity to the travelling ruler coupled to the shaft may prima facie obviously be an encoder, as it meets the functions and structure of a linear encoder, as understood by the Examiner.
Van De Rijdt is silent on the linear encoder or linear measuring system being installed on the outer housing or frame. Van De Rijdt illustrates only a cutaway portion of the frame (Fig. 1, item 25). The reading head (Fig. 1, item 15) of the linear measuring system is shown floating and not attached to any component.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to have the reading head of the linear measuring system secured installed to the outer frame to improve true linear location values of the shaft, to improve overall operation of the bonding tool. If the reading head were attached to the linear motion module (Fig. 1, item 12), it would travel with the ruler and would not have linear displacement with the ruler. If the reading head were securely attached to the carrier surface (Fig. 1, item 26) or any other surface beyond the frame, it would be commonly known that there is increased risk of inaccurate linear position values due to drift, vibration, or mechanical contact offsetting the reading head from the ruler.
Claims 3, 6 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van De Rijdt (US20020088107A1), as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, in view of Hayford (US20110005328A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
3. The bonding tool according to claim 1, wherein a first linear bearing coupled to the rotary module and the first portion of the shaft to guide the shaft to move in directions parallel to the rotary axis, and further comprising a second linear bearing coupled to the linear motion module to guide the linear motion module to move in directions parallel to the rotary axis.
With respect to claim 3, Van De Rijdt teaches a first linear bearing (Fig. 1, item 1) coupled to the rotary module and the first (lower) portion of the shaft to guide the shaft to move in directions parallel to the rotary axis [0019], and a linear guide (Fig. 1, item 13) coupled to the linear motion module to guide the linear motion module to move in directions parallel to the rotary axis [0015].
Van De Rijdt is silent on the linear guide coupled to the linear motion module being a second linear bearing, although the linear guide performs the same function of a linear bearing.
However, in the same field of art, the prior art of Hayford teaches a bonding tool (10) that teaches two linear bearings - one (Fig. 1, item 25b) located in the rotary drive section (Fig. 1, item 12), and the other (Fig. 1, item 25a) located at a separate section of the shaft and abutting the linear motion module (Fig. 1, item 11; [0012]). This teaching shows that a linear bearing can be used in the linear motion module section.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to substitute a second linear bearing housed in a linear motion module, as taught by Hayford, in place of the linear guide in the linear motion module taught by Van De Rijdt. This substitution would predictably result in modified bonding tool comprising two linear bearings in separate sections, if desired (based on available guiding components, for example), resulting in alternate means of guiding the bonding tool, with the linear module bearing having the same ability to guide the shaft axially within the linear motion module. The modification would require a placement of a linear bearing in a similar location on the shaft as the removed linear guide (Fig. 1, item 13) of Van De Rijdt; therefore, a place could be made for the linear bearing in the space below the end ring (Fig. 1, item 20) at the upper shaft.
6. The bonding tool according to claim 3, wherein the second linear bearing comprises a linear bush, a cage bearing or a ball spline, which is coupled to the linear motion module for guiding the linear motion module to move in directions parallel to the rotary axis.
With respect to claim 6, Hayford teaches the second linear bearing can comprise a ball spline, which is coupled to the linear motion module for guiding the linear motion module to move in directions parallel to the rotary axis [0012, 0014, 0016].
With respect to claim 7, as set forth in the rejection of claim 3, Hayford teaches a second linear bearing (Fig. 1, item 25b) coupled to the linear motion module.
Hayford provides few details on the bearings, other than that they are preferably ball spline-type bearings [0012].
PNG
media_image1.png
372
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, it would have been commonly known to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that a ball spline bearing (pictured above) comprises a flanged ring with internal ball elements and channels, two end seals (see side-seal) on opposite ends of the ring or sleeve that contain the ball elements and act as guides for linear movement.
These details of the commonly known ball spline bearing, would prima facie obviously have the ball spline embodiment of Hayford teach the end seals as two linear motion guides (Fig. 1, located at the unmarked notches above and below item 25b) which are respectively coupled to two opposite sides of the linear motion module in order to guide the linear motion module to move in directions parallel to the rotary axis.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van De Rijdt (US20020088107A1), in view of Hayford (US20110005328A1) as set forth above in the rejection of claim 3, and further in view of Klassen (WO2013188976A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
4. The bonding tool according to claim 3, wherein the second linear bearing comprises at least a first flexure coupled to a first portion of the linear motion module and a second flexure coupled to a second portion of the linear motion module.
With respect to claim 4, as set forth in the rejection of claim 3, the modified bonding tool of Van De Rijdt, in view of Hayford, teaches the second linear bearing within a linear motion module.
Van De Rijdt, in view of Hayford, is silent on the second linear bearing comprising at least a first flexure coupled to a first portion of the linear motion module and a second flexure coupled to a second portion of the linear motion module. Van De Rijdt does teach a means for controlling bearing contact during impact force by providing a clearance in the ball race of a bearing, but that teaching is for a rotary bearing [0020].
However, the prior art of Klassen teaches linear bearings (Fig. 20, item 152) comprising a plurality of flexures (Fig. 20, items 154) disposed around the actuation member as reinforcements [0108, Claim 12]. The flexures are designed for radial compliance and increased tangential rigidity during operation [0108].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to substitute bearings comprising flexures, taught by Klassen, in place of the lower and upper linear bearings taught by Van De Rijdt, in view of Hayford, to predictably obtain a stronger, more reinforced, linear actuator. This modification of Van De Rijdt, in view of Hayford and Klassen, would provide improvement to the bonding tool, as the flexures would provide reinforcement to the bonding machine linear actuator, such as to reduce deviation of the shaft from the center axis occurring due to stresses from the bonding operation. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
5. The bonding tool according to claim 4, wherein the first flexure is coupled to a top portion or an upper portion of the linear motion module and the second flexure is coupled to a bottom portion of the linear motion module.
With respect to claim 5, as set forth in the rejection of claim 4, the modification of Van De Rijdt, in view of Hayford and Klassen, teaches the first flexure would be coupled to a top portion or an upper portion of the linear motion module and the second flexure coupled to a bottom portion of the linear motion module.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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.
Regarding claim 9, no prior art was found to modify Hayford to teach the bonding tool according to claim 1, wherein the linear motion actuator comprises at least two linear motors which are arranged symmetrically around the shaft such that a total linear actuation force applied to the linear motion module is substantially collinear with a center of gravity of all linear moving parts of the bonding tool and a functional point of the bonding tool.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY C GROSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-1363. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM - 5PM.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached on 571-270-7457. 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://ppair-my.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.
GREGORY C. GROSSO
Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/GREGORY C. GROSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748