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 .
This office action is a response to the election of species filed on 4/20/2026.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A, claims 1, 3-8 and 16, in the reply filed on 4/20/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 2 and 9-15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/20/2026.
Drawings
The drawing of Fig. 1 is not of sufficient quality to permit examination. Accordingly, replacement drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to this Office action. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Applicant is given a shortened statutory period of TWO (2) MONTHS to submit new drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.81. Extensions of time may be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a) but in no case can any extension carry the date for reply to this letter beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute (35 U.S.C. 133). Failure to timely submit replacement drawing sheets will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: --METHOD FOR MATCHING A PLURALITY OF COMPONENTS TO A PLURALITY OF PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD (PCB)--.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-8 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Re. claim 1: The phrase “a plurality of printed circuit board (PCB)” as recited in lines 1-2 appears to be --a plurality of printed circuit boards (PCBs)--.
Re. claim 4: The phrase “after determining viable component and PCB pairings” as recited in line 1 appears to be --after determining the viable component and the PCB pairings--.
Re. claim 6: The phrase “after pairing components with PCBs having dissimilar warpage modes” as recited in lines 1-2 appears to be --after pairing the components with the PCBs having dissimilar warpage modes--.
Re. claim 7: The phrase “wherein determining viable PCB and component parings includes grouping the plurality of components and the plurality of PCBs by warpage mode” as recited in lines 1-2 appears to be --wherein determining the viable PCB and component parings includes grouping the plurality of components and the plurality of PCBs by the warpage mode--.
Re. claim 16: The phrase “a plurality of printed circuit board (PCB)” as recited in lines 1-2 appears to be --a plurality of printed circuit boards (PCBs)--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-8 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.
Re. claim 1: The phrase “the component” as recited in lines 4-5 lacks antecedent basis.
The phrases “the component warpage characteristics” as recited in lines 6-7 and “the PCB warpage characteristics” as recited in line 7 lack antecedent basis.
Re. claim 3: The phrase “the warpage characteristics include” as recited in line 1 renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear as to of which the warpage characteristics are indicated.
Re. claim 16: The phrase “the component” as recited in lines 5-6 lacks antecedent basis.
The phrases “the component warpage characteristics” as recited in lines 8-9 and “the PCB warpage characteristics” as recited in line 9 lack antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoffmeyer et al. (PGPub 2014/0268603 A1).
Hoffmeyer et al. teach a process of matching a plurality of components to a plurality of printed circuit boards (PCBs), comprising steps of: characterizing warpage characteristics of the plurality of components (504, Fig. 5, paragraph [0060]); characterizing warpage characteristics of a site of the plurality of PCBs where the component will be placed (504, Fig. 5, paragraph [0060]); determining viable component and PCB pairings based upon the component warpage characteristics and the PCB warpage characteristics (518, Fig. 5, paragraph [0067]; and assembling the viable pairs of components and PCBs (520, Figs. 1A-1C and 5, paragraphs [0068]-[0069]).
Re. claim 3: The warpage characteristics include a warpage mode (such as a shape) and warpage magnitude (such as a size) (see paragraph [0060]).
Re. claim 4: After determining viable component and PCB pairings with complementing warpage modes, pairing components with PCBs having dissimilar warpage modes and low warpage magnitudes (paragraphs [0062]-[0063]).
Re. claim 5: The warpage magnitude has a magnitude less than a warpage magnitude threshold (paragraphs [0066]-[0067]).
Re. claim 6: After pairing components with PCBs having dissimilar warpage modes and low warpage magnitudes, determining that remaining components and PCBs are non-viable. It is noted that if the remaining components and PCBs are non-viable after the step 516, the process goes back to step of 506 in Fig. 5 (paragraphs [0061]-[0062]).
Re. claim 16: Hoffmeyer et al. teach a system of matching a plurality of components to a plurality of printed circuit boards (PCBs), comprising: a warpage characterizing characterization system as shown in Fig. 5 configured to characterize warpage characteristics of the plurality of components (504, Fig. 5, paragraph [0060]); characterize warpage characteristics of a site of the plurality of PCBs where the component will be placed (504, Fig. 5, paragraph [0060]); and a processing system configure to determine viable component and PCB pairings based upon the component warpage characteristics and the PCB warpage characteristics (518, Fig. 5, paragraph [0067].
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 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffmeyer et al.
Hoffmeyer et al. teach all limitations as set forth above, but silent grouping the plurality of components and the plurality of PCBs by warpage mode. Hoffmeyer et al. teach a three types of warp relationships between the component and the PCB as shown in Figs 2A-2C (paragraphs [0044]-[0048]). At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the grouping the plurality of components and the plurality of PCBs by warpage mode as recited in the claimed invention because Applicant has not disclosed that the grouping the plurality of components and the plurality of PCBs by warpage mode as recited in the claimed invention provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. It is noted that since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable rangers involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (il-A). Therefore, since such a modification would have been an obvious consideration that is within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the well-known benefit of grouping desirable the plurality of components and the plurality of PCBs by warpage mode.
The Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tseng et al. (PGPub 2022/0392792 A1), Goh (PGPub 2012/0074560 A1), and WOLLSTADT (PGPub 2020/0349302 A1) are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to a system and a method for matching a plurality of components to a plurality of printed circuit boards (PCBs).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6:00 AM-2:00 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/PAUL D KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Prosecution Insights