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
The information disclosure statement filed July 27, 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered, as indicated on the form.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Please note: See para. 30 of the Applicant’s PGPUB for these instances
DA
P1
P2
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 should read, “… when the electronic assembly passes through the opening.”, see for example claim 3 which correctly recites a similar limitation.
Claim 13 should read, “… the movable element having an edge capable of being positioned to a location within the width dimension of said opening and extending along the length dimension of said opening …”, to fix what appears to be an inadvertent use of the word alone.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation, “wherein the controllable protection device comprises a first element movable as an integral piece which covers a width between the total width of the opening and the width of the electronic assembly;” Here, the width is being interpreted as the vertical direction in the figure, i.e. above and below the electronic assembly. See also paras. 9 and 12 of the Applicant’s PGPUB, which describes the first and second movable elements being disposed above and below the electronic assembly and covering the same width.
Similar rationale applies to the width of claim 2.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Device for supplying a gas in claim 1, modified by the functional language of “supplying a gas”, while not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Applicant’s PGPUB describes the device for supplying a protective gas in para. 26, “In the cross-section of FIG. 1 … reference numeral 40 a device for supplying a protective gas …” where fig. 1 shows the device 40 located at the bottom of the process chamber 10.
However, this does not provide sufficient structure for performing the claimed function, see 112(b) rejection below.
Device for detecting data relating to the dimensions of the electronic assembly in claim 1, modified by the functional language of “detecting data relating to the dimensions of the electronic assembly”, while not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Applicant’s PGPUB describes the device for detecting data relating to the dimensions of the electronic assembly in para. 15, “In certain embodiments, the measuring device uses imaging 2D and/or 3D measuring methods, and/or optical measuring methods, and/or mechanical measuring methods, and/or acoustic measuring methods for detecting the topography of the electronic assembly. In order to determine position-dependent height information of the electronic assembly, one or several cameras can be used, for example, to establish a three-dimensional model of the assembly. As an alternative or in support of the evaluation of the camera images, the height information can also be obtained by interferometry with a laser or an array of lasers. As an alternative and in support of the above-mentioned methods, mechanical sampling methods or acoustic methods, such as the generation and evaluation of a sound field, can also be used for obtaining height information.”
Actuating device in claim 7, modified by the functional language of “by which the first and/or second movable element can be simultaneously and independently moved in a vertical direction”, while not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Applicant’s PGPUB describes the actuating device in para. 19, “The actuating device can here comprise an electric or pneumatic driving means.” And para. 37, “As an actuating device, preferably electric, electromechanical or pneumatic driving means are used. For example, a stepper motor with a defined step size, a pneumatic piston with position detection, an electric motor with position detection of the movable element etc. could be used.” See also claim 9.
Actuating device in claim 8, modified by the functional language of “by which the first and/or second movable element can be simultaneously and independently rotated about a horizontal axis”, while not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Applicant’s PGPUB describes the actuating device in para. 19, “The actuating device can here comprise an electric or pneumatic driving means.” And para. 37, “As an actuating device, preferably electric, electromechanical or pneumatic driving means are used. For example, a stepper motor with a defined step size, a pneumatic piston with position detection, an electric motor with position detection of the movable element etc. could be used.”
Actuating device in claim 13, modified by the functional language of “moving the edge of said movable element to the location”, while not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Applicant’s PGPUB describes the actuating device in para. 19, “The actuating device can here comprise an electric or pneumatic driving means.” And para. 37, “As an actuating device, preferably electric, electromechanical or pneumatic driving means are used. For example, a stepper motor with a defined step size, a pneumatic piston with position detection, an electric motor with position detection of the movable element etc. could be used.”
Topography measuring device in claim 13, modified by the functional language of “measuring a topography of the electronic assembly”, while not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Applicant’s PGPUB describes the topography measuring device, or measuring device that detects the topography of the electronic assembly, in para. 15, “In certain embodiments, the measuring device uses imaging 2D and/or 3D measuring methods, and/or optical measuring methods, and/or mechanical measuring methods, and/or acoustic measuring methods for detecting the topography of the electronic assembly. In order to determine position-dependent height information of the electronic assembly, one or several cameras can be used, for example, to establish a three-dimensional model of the assembly. As an alternative or in support of the evaluation of the camera images, the height information can also be obtained by interferometry with a laser or an array of lasers. As an alternative and in support of the above-mentioned methods, mechanical sampling methods or acoustic methods, such as the generation and evaluation of a sound field, can also be used for obtaining height information.”
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation “a device for supplying a gas” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The corresponding structure shown in fig. 1 is generic; in other words, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claims 7, 8, 10, and 11. The claims recite the limitation, “the second movable element”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider each of these claims as depending upon claim 2, from which proper antecedent basis has been properly established for the second movable element.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,910,539. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of the Patent’s plurality of individually controllable segments reads on the Instant Application’s claimed movable element.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,910,539 in view of DE 3916178 C1 to Schachinger.
Note: Reference is made to the attached translation of Schachinger.
Similar to claim 13, each of the Patent’s plurality of individually controllable segments reads on the Instant Application’s claimed first element.
However, the Patent fails to teach a device for supplying a gas.
Schachinger teaches a device for supplying a gas (fig. 1, gas supply lines 56 and 59 and gas quantity regulator 54, for supplying protective gas 58 as indicated by arrow 57. Described at the bottom of p. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Patent to implement a suitable device for supplying a gas, as taught by Schachinger. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of reducing the waste of protective gas, as suggested by Schachinger on p. 2 paras. 5-7.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 12-14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 3916178 C1 to Schachinger, cited in Applicant’s July 27, 2023 IDS.
Note: Reference is made to the attached translation of Schachinger.
Regarding claim 1. Schachinger teaches a process chamber for carrying out thermal processes in the manufacture of an electronic assembly (fig. 1, protective gas furnace 10), comprising:
at least one opening for introducing and/or removing the electronic assembly (fig. 1, inlet opening 21 and outlet opening 23);
a device for supplying a gas (fig. 1, gas supply lines 56 and 59 and gas quantity regulator 54, for supplying protective gas 58 as indicated by arrow 57. Described at the bottom of p. 4);
a controllable protection device (fig. 1, inlet door 20) which is arranged on the opening in order to reduce a leakage of gas from the process chamber (p. 4, “Fig. 2 is a graphical representation of the dependence of the amount of shielding gas supplied as a function of the door height.” Therefore, the door reduces the leakage of gas since when the door is closed, less gas leaks from the chamber),
wherein the controllable protection device comprises a first element movable as an integral piece (fig. 1, inlet door 20 could be considered as a first element, and is movable as an integral piece, as described on p. 3 para. 6 ) which covers a width between the total width of the opening and the width of the electronic assembly (fig. 1, inlet door 20 can be seen to cover a width of the opening 21 between the housing 14 and the workpiece 61);
a device for detecting data relating to the dimensions of the electronic assembly (fig. 1 and p. 4 para. 7, means 32 for detecting the height of work pieces 60 to 62); and
a controller which can control the protection device on the basis of the data relating to the dimensions of the electronic assembly (fig. 1, process computer 38 with line 36) such that, when the electronic assembly passes through the opening, a defined spacing is constantly maintained between the electronic assembly and the first movable element (p. 4 para. 10, the door 20 is adjusted to provide a defined spacing between the workpiece and the door 20).
PNG
media_image1.png
348
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4. Schachinger teaches the process chamber according to claim 1, wherein the device for detecting data relating to dimensions of the electronic assembly comprises a measuring device (Schachinger fig. 1, diode grid 34) which detects the topography or the three-dimensional structure of the electronic assembly, respectively (Schachinger p. 4 para. 8).
Regarding claim 5. Schachinger teaches the process chamber according to claim 4, wherein the measuring device uses imaging 2D and/or 3D measuring methods (as described on Schachinger p. 4 para. 8, the diode grid 34 is substantially a 2D measuring method), and/or optical measuring methods (as described on Schachinger p. 4 para. 8, the diode grid 34 is substantially an optical measuring method, i.e. it uses light and detectors to optically measure the workpiece), and/or mechanical measuring methods (optional limitation, see mapping to alternative), and/or acoustic measuring methods (optional limitation, see mapping to alternative) for detecting the topography of the electronic assembly.
Regarding claim 12. Schachinger teaches the process chamber according to claim 4, wherein the measuring device is selected from the group consisting of imaging 2D and/or 3D measuring devices (as described on Schachinger p. 4 para. 8, the diode grid 34 is substantially a 2D measuring method), optical measuring devices (as described on Schachinger p. 4 para. 8, the diode grid 34 is substantially an optical measuring method, i.e. it uses light and detectors to optically measure the workpiece), mechanical measuring devices (optional limitation, see mapping to alternative), and acoustic measuring devices (optional limitation, see mapping to alternative).
Regarding claim 13. Schachinger teaches an electronic assembly process chamber (fig. 1, protective gas furnace 10) comprising:
a process chamber (fig. 1, inside of housing 14);
an opening in said process chamber having a width dimension and a length dimension (fig. 1, inlet opening 21, understood to have 2 dimensions), the width dimension and the length dimension configured to allowing an electronic assembly having components to pass through said opening (p. 4 para. 10, the workpiece 61 is passed through the opening 21 under the door 20);
a movable element comprising an integral piece selectively positioned to cover said opening (fig. 1, inlet door 20), the movable element having an edge capable of being positioned to a location within the width dimension of said opening and extending along the length dimension of said opening (fig. 1, the inlet door 20 is raised up and down, i.e. a width direction, and is understood to extend along a perpendicular length dimension, thereby covering the opening 21);
an actuating device coupled to said movable element, said actuating device capable of moving the edge of said movable element to the location (fig. 1, linkage 44 moves door 20 as described on p. 3 para. 6);
a topography measuring device (fig. 1, means 32 for detecting the height of work pieces 60 to 62), said topography measuring device capable of measuring a topography of the electronic assembly (p. 4 para. 7); and
a controller coupled to said actuating device (fig. 1, process computer 38 with line 36), said controller receiving data from said topography measuring device of the topography of the electronic assembly (p. 4 para. 8) and controlling positioning of the edge of said movable element to a selected location adjacent the electronic assembly based on the data of the topography of the electronic assembly (p. 4 paras. 9-10),
whereby loss of a protective gas within said process chamber is reduced (p. 3 paras. 8-9).
Regarding claim 14. Schachinger teaches an electronic assembly process chamber according to claim 13 wherein:
the integral piece comprises one piece (Schachinger fig. 1, the inlet door 20 is understood to be substantially one piece).
Regarding claim 15. Schachinger teaches an electronic assembly process chamber according to claim 13 wherein:
wherein the integral piece comprises several parts connected to each other and attached to a common mount (Schachinger fig. 1, the door 20 comprises a linkage 44, and would therefore be considered to comprise several parts connected to each other. These parts are attached to a common mount, being the actuating motor 42 or portion of the housing 14 to which the door 20 attaches, per se),
wherein the several parts move together (Schachinger fig. 1, the door 20 and the linkage 44 move together).
Regarding claim 16. Schachinger teaches an electronic assembly process chamber according to claim 13 wherein:
wherein the edge is straight (Schachinger fig. 1, the inlet door 20 has a substantially straight bottom edge).
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.
The factual inquiries 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 nonobviousness.
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(s) 2-3, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schachinger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP H10303543 A to Ishida
Note: Reference is made to the attached translation of Ishida.
Regarding claim 2. Schachinger teaches the process chamber according to claim 1,
But fails to teach wherein the controllable protection device comprises a second movable element which covers a width between the total width of the opening and a width the electronic assembly,
wherein the first movable element and the second movable element are each movable as integral pieces and are individually controllable and are arranged such that they are disposed above and below the electronic assembly when the electronic assembly passes through the opening.
Ishida teaches a system having upper and lower adjustable doors (fig. 6, upper and lower part labyrinth 11 and 18, as described in the abstract)
PNG
media_image2.png
344
375
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Schachinger to implement a suitable lower door underneath the workpiece, as taught by Ishida. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of reducing the leak of heat and protective gas from both sides of the electronic assembly, as suggested by Ishida in the abstract.
Regarding claim 3. The device of modified Schachinger teaches the process chamber according to claim 2, wherein the controllable protection device can control the second movable element such that, when the electronic assembly passes through the opening, a defined spacing between components on the bottom side of the electronic assembly and the second movable element can be kept constant (the suitable lower door of modified Schachinger would operate in the same way as the upper door; therefore, this claim is met for the same reason as explained in the mapping to the last paragraph of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7. The device of modified Schachinger teaches the process chamber according to claim 2, further comprising an actuating device by which the first and/or the second movable element can be simultaneously and independently moved in a vertical direction (Schachinger fig. 1, linkage 44 and actuating motor 42).
Regarding claim 9. The device of modified Schachinger teaches the process chamber according to claim 7, wherein the actuating device comprises an electric or pneumatic driving means (Schachinger fig. 1, actuating motor 42).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schachinger in view of Ishida as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of GB 2448501 A to Milner.
Regarding claim 8. The device of modified Schachinger teaches the process chamber according to claim 2,
But fails to teach further comprises an actuating device by which the first and/or the second movable element can be simultaneously and independently rotated about a horizontal axis, so that an axis of rotation is located at an end of the movable element opposite the electronic assembly perpendicular to a direction of transport of the electronic assembly.
Milner teaches doors that rotate by an actuating device (fig. 1, actuating device 11 that drives door 9 to open by rotating about pivot 10).
PNG
media_image3.png
477
682
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Schachinger to implement doors that rotate, as taught by Milner. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of providing adjustable opening doors in a suitable way, as suggested by Milner in the abstract, “Preferably, the first sensor is adapted to measure the width of the work-piece and to transmit the width to a processing device which controls a door actuator 11 to open at least one door 9 to form a minimum opening.”
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schachinger in view of Ishida as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 20160278165 A1 to Emami.
Regarding claim 10. The device of modified Schachinger teaches the process chamber according to claim 2,
But fails to teach wherein the first and/or the second movable element is made of stainless steel.
Emami teaches stainless steel as a material (para. 30 and fig. 1)
MPEP 2144.07 states, “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement a suitable stainless steel as the building material of Schachinger’s door, since it is known in the art to use stainless steel as a material. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of forming the door of Schachinger with a suitable material, as suggested by Emami in para. 30.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schachinger in view of Ishida as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of the attached NPL to Covestro, Makrolon® TC thermal conductive plastics: next-generation heat management, accessed 2021.
Regarding claim 11. The device of modified Schachinger teaches the process chamber according to claim 2,
But fails to teach wherein the first and/or the second movable element is made of a conductive plastic that is stable up to 280° C.
Covestro teaches conductive plastic as a material (“Makrolon® TC thermal conductive plastics”)
MPEP 2144.07 states, “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement a suitable conductive plastic as the door of Schachinger, since it is known in the art to use conductive plastic as a material. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of forming the door of Schachinger with a suitable material that is able to be 3D printed, as suggested by Covestro in 3D printing: design freedom, resource efficiency and thermal management for personalized and small series production, copied below.
PNG
media_image4.png
293
980
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schachinger as applied to claims 1 and 13, respectively and as set forth above, and further in view of US 5320274 A to Precious, cited in Applicant’s July 27, 2023 IDS.
Regarding claim 6. Schachinger teaches the process chamber according to claim 1,
But fails to teach wherein the device for detecting data is designed to adopt provided 2D and/or 3D data of the electronic assembly.
Precious teaches providing 2D and/or 3D data of the electronic assembly (col. 7 ll. 8-21, where a profile of the electronic assembly is provided).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Schachinger to adopt provided data relating to the dimensions of the electronic assembly, as taught by Precious. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of allowing the door to be customized to the profile of the electronic assembly, further reducing the amount of leaked gas and heat, as suggested by Precious in col. 7 ll. 5-8.
Regarding claim 17. Schachinger teaches an electronic assembly process chamber according to claim 13
But fails to teach wherein:
wherein the edge is adapted to the topography of the electronic assembly.
Precious teaches an edge adapted to the topography of an electronic assembly (fig. 3, shaped lower edge 48, described between cols. 6-7).
PNG
media_image5.png
291
435
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Schachinger to implement a suitable shaped lower edge on the bottom of door 20, as taught by Precious. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of allowing the door to be customized to the profile of the electronic assembly, further reducing the amount of leaked gas and heat, as suggested by Precious in col. 7 ll. 5-8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt J Wolford whose telephone number is (571)272-9945. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael G Hoang can be reached at (571)272-6460. 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.
/KURT J WOLFORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762