DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendments filed on July 6, 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Acknowledgement
Applicant’s amendments filed on July 6, 2026,in response to the office action mailed on 4/7/2026, is acknowledged. The present office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, claims 1-13 and 21-24 are currently pending. Claims 14-20 have been canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/29/2023 are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Allen (US 2019/0334038).
With respect to Claim 9, Allen shows (Fig. 3,7A-7C) all aspects of the current invention including a package tray comprising:
a base (3) comprising a largest planar surface comprising a grid of electromagnetic radiation reflectors (reflective optical means comprising reflective surface 11) coupled thereto (par 57-59)
wherein sidewalls (reflective surface 11) of the grid of electromagnetic radiation reflectors are angled to a plane formed by the largest planar surface of the base (par 60)
With respect to Claim 10, Allen shows (Fig. 3,7A-7C) wherein the sidewalls (reflective surface 11) direct electromagnetic radiation (9) toward sides of a semiconductor package (sensor devices 5) located on the base.
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.
Claims 1, 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen (US 2019/0334038).
With respect to Claim 1, Allen shows (Fig. 3,7A-7C) most aspects of the current invention including a package tray comprising:
a base (3);
a grid of reflectors (reflective optical means comprising reflective surface 11) coupled to a largest planar side of the base (par 57-59)
wherein sidewalls (reflective surface 11) of the grid of electromagnetic radiation reflectors are configured to direct electromagnetic radiation (9) toward sides of a plurality of semiconductor packages (sensor devices 5) located within the grid (par 60)
Furthermore, with respect to claim 1, note that a limitation in a claim with respect to the manner in which a claimed device is intended to be used does not differentiate the claimed device from a prior-art device if the prior-art device teaches all structural limitations in the claims and the functional limitations are found to be inherent in the prior-art device. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. and the related case law cited therein which makes it clear that it is the final product per se which must be determined in a device claim, and not the patentability of its functions (909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
As stated in Best, Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Note that the applicant has burden of proof once the examiner establishes a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the instant case, Allen teaches all structural aspects of the semiconductor package tray. Furthermore, the structure of Allen is capable of performing the claimed function, recited “wherein the electromagnetic radiation is configured to assist in curing a component of the plurality of semiconductor packages.”
With respect to Claim 4, Allen shows (Fig. 3,7A-7C) wherein the sidewalls of the grid comprise a curved cross-sectional shape
With respect to Claim 8, Allen shows (Fig. 3,7A-7C) wherein the grid is integral with the base.
Claims 2-7, 11-13 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen (US 2019/0334038) in view of Glenn (US 6,686,580).
With respect to claim 2, Allen shows (Fig. 3,7A-7C) most aspects of the current invention including wherein the electromagnetic radiation is visible light or x-rays or any other suitable type of electromagnetic radiation. However, Allen does not show wherein the electromagnetic radiation is ultraviolet light.
On the other hand, and in the same field of endeavor, Glenn teaches (Fig. 1-2) a semiconductor device package comprising an electromagnetic radiation reflector (126) coupled to a largest planar side of a base (102), wherein sidewalls (128a,128c) of the electromagnetic radiation reflector are configured to direct electromagnetic radiation (140) toward sides of a semiconductor package (106) located on the base, wherein the electromagnetic radiation is ultraviolet light. Glenn teaches since electromagnetic radiation is reflected on planar inner sidewall of the reflector, which prevents distortion of the image which is displayed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the electromagnetic radiation is ultraviolet light in the device of Allen, as taught by Glenn because electromagnetic radiation is reflected on planar inner sidewall of the reflector, which prevents distortion of the image which is displayed.
With respect to Claim 3, Glenn teaches (Fig. 1-2) wherein the electromagnetic radiation (140) is emitted by an electromagnetic radiation source (radiation 140 is emitted from a source used to output image 150) oriented substantially directly above a largest planar surface of the base. (Also, see comments stated above in Par. 19-20 with regards to Claim 2, which are considered repeated here)
With respect to Claim 4, Allen shows (Fig. 3,7A-7C) wherein the sidewalls of the grid comprise a curved cross-sectional shape. Furthermore, Glenn teaches (Fig. 1-2) wherein the sidewalls of the electromagnetic radiation reflector comprise a triangular cross-sectional shape.
With respect to Claim 5, Glenn teaches (Fig. 1-2) wherein the sidewalls of the electromagnetic radiation reflector are triangular and angles of two vertices of the triangular cross-sectional shape adjacent to the base are substantially 45 degrees.
With respect to Claim 6, Glenn teaches (Fig. 1-2) wherein the sidewalls of the electromagnetic radiation reflector are triangular and angles of two vertices of the triangular cross-sectional shape adjacent to the base are substantially 45 degrees to 60 degrees.
With respect to Claim 7, Glenn teaches (Fig. 1-2) wherein the sidewalls of the electromagnetic radiation reflector comprise a closed cross sectional shape that comprises at least two-line segments angled substantially 45 degrees from a plane formed by a largest planar surface of the base.
With respect to claim 11, Allen shows (Fig. 3,7A-7C) most aspects of the current invention including wherein the electromagnetic radiation is visible light or x-rays or any other suitable type of electromagnetic radiation. However, Allen does not show wherein the electromagnetic radiation is ultraviolet light.
On the other hand, and in the same field of endeavor, Glenn teaches (Fig. 1-2) a semiconductor device package comprising an electromagnetic radiation reflector (126) coupled to a largest planar side of a base (102), wherein sidewalls (128a,128c) of the electromagnetic radiation reflector are configured to direct electromagnetic radiation (140) toward sides of a semiconductor package (106) located on the base, wherein the electromagnetic radiation is ultraviolet light. Glenn teaches since electromagnetic radiation is reflected on planar inner sidewall of the reflector, which prevents distortion of the image which is displayed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the electromagnetic radiation is ultraviolet light in the device of Allen, as taught by Glenn because electromagnetic radiation is reflected on planar inner sidewall of the reflector, which prevents distortion of the image which is displayed.
With respect to Claim 12, Glenn teaches (Fig. 1-2) wherein the electromagnetic radiation (140) is emitted by an electromagnetic radiation source (radiation 140 is emitted from a source used to output image 150) oriented substantially directly above a largest planar surface of the base. (Also, see comments stated above in Par. 27-28 with regards to Claim 11, which are considered repeated here)
With respect to Claim 13, Allen shows (Fig. 3,7A-7C) most aspects of the current invention including wherein the sidewalls of the grid comprise a curved cross-sectional shape. However, Allen does not show wherein the sidewalls of the grid comprise a triangular cross-sectional shape.
On the other hand, and in the same field of endeavor, Glenn teaches (Fig. 1-2) a semiconductor device package comprising an electromagnetic radiation reflector (126) coupled to a largest planar side of a base (102), wherein sidewalls (128a,128c) of the electromagnetic radiation reflector are configured to direct electromagnetic radiation (140) toward sides of a semiconductor package (106) located on the base, wherein the sidewalls of the grid comprise a triangular cross sectional shape.
However, it is noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality of having the sidewalls of the grid comprise a triangular cross-sectional shape, as claimed in the instant application.
Therefore, absent any criticality, this limitation is only considered to be an obvious modification of the sidewalls of the grid disclosed by Glenn as the courts have held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is within the level of skill in the art, as the particular sidewalls shapes of the grid claimed by applicant is nothing more than one of numerous sidewall cross sectional shapes that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation based on its suitability for the intended use of the invention. See In re Daily, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
With respect to Claim 21, Allen shows (Fig. 3,7A-7C) most aspects of the current invention including a package tray comprising:
a base (3);
a grid of electromagnetic radiation reflectors (reflective optical means comprising reflective surface 11) integral with the base and coupled to a largest planar side of the base (par 57-59)
wherein sidewalls (reflective surface 11) of the grid of electromagnetic radiation reflectors are configured to direct electromagnetic radiation (9) toward sides of a plurality of semiconductor packages (sensor devices 5) located within the grid and coupled to the tray (par 57-60)
Furthermore, Allen shows (Fig. 3,7A-7C) wherein the sidewalls of the grid of electromagnetic radiation reflectors comprise a curved cross-sectional shape. However, Allen does not show wherein the sidewalls of the grid of electromagnetic radiation reflectors comprise a triangular cross-sectional shape.
On the other hand, and in the same field of endeavor, Glenn teaches (Fig. 1-2) a semiconductor device package comprising an electromagnetic radiation reflector (126) coupled to a largest planar side of a base (102), wherein sidewalls (128a,128c) of the electromagnetic radiation reflector are configured to direct electromagnetic radiation (140) toward sides of a semiconductor package (106) located on the base, wherein the sidewalls of the electromagnetic radiation reflectors comprise a triangular cross sectional shape.
However, it is noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality of having the sidewalls of the grid of electromagnetic radiation reflectors comprise a triangular cross-sectional shape, as claimed in the instant application.
Therefore, absent any criticality, this limitation is only considered to be an obvious modification of the sidewalls of the grid of electromagnetic radiation reflectors disclosed by Glenn as the courts have held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is within the level of skill in the art, as the particular sidewalls shapes of the grid of electromagnetic radiation reflectors claimed by applicant is nothing more than one of numerous sidewall cross sectional shapes that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation based on its suitability for the intended use of the invention. See In re Daily, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Furthermore, with respect to claim 21, note that a limitation in a claim with respect to the manner in which a claimed device is intended to be used does not differentiate the claimed device from a prior-art device if the prior-art device teaches all structural limitations in the claims and the functional limitations are found to be inherent in the prior-art device. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. and the related case law cited therein which makes it clear that it is the final product per se which must be determined in a device claim, and not the patentability of its functions (909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
As stated in Best, Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Note that the applicant has burden of proof once the examiner establishes a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the instant case, Allen in view of Glenn teaches all structural aspects of the semiconductor package tray. Furthermore, the structure of Allen in view of Glenn is capable of performing the claimed function, recited “wherein the electromagnetic radiation is configured to assist in curing a component of the plurality of semiconductor packages.”
With respect to claim 22, Allen shows (Fig. 3,7A-7C) most aspects of the current invention including wherein the electromagnetic radiation is visible light or x-rays or any other suitable type of electromagnetic radiation. However, Allen does not show wherein the electromagnetic radiation is ultraviolet light.
On the other hand, and in the same field of endeavor, Glenn teaches (Fig. 1-2) a semiconductor device package comprising an electromagnetic radiation reflector (126) coupled to a largest planar side of a base (102), wherein sidewalls (128a,128c) of the electromagnetic radiation reflector are configured to direct electromagnetic radiation (140) toward sides of a semiconductor package (106) located on the base, wherein the electromagnetic radiation is ultraviolet light. Glenn teaches since electromagnetic radiation is reflected on planar inner sidewall of the reflector, which prevents distortion of the image which is displayed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the electromagnetic radiation is ultraviolet light in the device of Allen, as taught by Glenn because electromagnetic radiation is reflected on planar inner sidewall of the reflector, which prevents distortion of the image which is displayed.
With respect to Claim 23, Glenn teaches (Fig. 1-2) wherein the electromagnetic radiation (140) is emitted by an electromagnetic radiation source (radiation 140 is emitted from a source used to output image 150) oriented substantially directly above a largest planar surface of the base. (Also, see comments stated above in Par. 36-41 with regards to Claim 21, which are considered repeated here)
With respect to Claim 24, Glenn teaches (Fig. 1-2) wherein the sidewalls of the electromagnetic radiation reflector are triangular and angles of two vertices of the triangular cross-sectional shape adjacent to the base are substantially 45 degrees.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-9, filed 7/6/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-13 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Allen (US 2019/0334038) for claims 1-13 and 21-24.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUINTON A BRASFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-0804. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-4PM.
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, Wael Fahmy can be reached on 571-272-1705. 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.
/Q.A.B/ Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814
