DETAILED ACTION
Elections/Restrictions
1. This office action is a response to Applicant's election filed on 07/14/2026 without traverse of Group II, claims 14-27 for further examination. Claims 1-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 7-13 are cancelled. Claims 21-27 are new.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/10/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
4. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “vacuum generating device” recited in claims 14 & 21 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Interpretation
5. 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-AlA 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: “vacuum generating device” in claims 14, 17, 21 & 24.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 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 wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner' s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
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.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections
6. 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.
7. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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.
9. Claims 14 & 20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Szapucki et al. (US 6,244,641 B1) hereinafter Szapucki (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Szapucki are included between parentheses).
As regards to claim 14, Szapucki discloses a manufacturing system (abs; fig 1-18), comprising:
a bottom support block (14) (col 4, ln 1-49; fig 2);
a transfer arm module (2/30) disposed over the bottom support block (14), wherein the transfer arm module (2/30) includes a flat bottom surface (36) and an opening (38) formed through the flat bottom surface (36) (col 4, ln 1-49; col 5, ln 17-col 6, ln 17; fig 2-8); and
a vacuum generating device (col 4, ln 1-49; col 5, ln 17-col 6, ln 17) coupled to the opening (38) of the transfer arm module (2/30) (col 4, ln 1-49; col 5, ln 17-col 6, ln 17; fig 2-8).
As regards to claim 20, Szapucki discloses a manufacturing system (abs; fig 1-18), wherein the bottom support block (14) includes a locating sensor (20) for supporting and focusing the vacuum suction (col 4, ln 1-49; col 5, ln 17-col 6, ln 17; fig 2-8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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 of this title, 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.
11. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
12. Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szapucki as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Magariya (JP 2016179669 A) hereinafter Magariya (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Magariya are included between parentheses).
As regards to claim 15, Szapucki discloses a manufacturing system (abs; fig 1-18) and the transfer arm module (2/30) (col 4, ln 1-49; col 5, ln 17-col 6, ln 17; fig 2-8), however Szapucki does not disclose a printing pallet module comprising a printing pallet disposed adjacent to the transfer arm module (2/30).
Magariya discloses a manufacturing system (abs; fig 1-16), comprising a printing pallet module (1) comprising a printing pallet (30) ([0011]-[0014]; fig 2-6, 8-16). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a printing pallet module (1) comprising a printing pallet (30) in the system of Szapucki, because Magariya teaches the use of a printing pallet module (1) comprising a printing pallet (30) that holds the printed wiring board (5) and the stencil mask (4) that covers the surface of the printed wiring board (5) in a superimposed state ([0013]), wherein disposing the printing pallet module (1) comprising the printing pallet (30) of Magariya adjacent to the transfer arm module (2/30) of Szapucki to have the configuration recited in the claim is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way since “the particular placement of structural components was held to be an obvious matter of design choice.” In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
As regards to claim 16, Szapucki discloses a manufacturing system (abs; fig 1-18), however Szapucki does not disclose wherein the printing pallet includes a recessed positioning area.
Magariya discloses a manufacturing system (abs; fig 1-16), wherein the printing pallet (30) includes a recessed positioning area (30a) ([0011]-[0014]; fig 2-6, 8-16). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the printing pallet (30) includes a recessed positioning area (30a) in the system of Szapucki, because Magariya teaches the use of wherein the printing pallet (30) includes a recessed positioning area (30a) that holds the printed wiring board (5) and the stencil mask (4) that covers the surface of the printed wiring board (5) in a superimposed state ([0013]).
As regards to claim 17, Szapucki discloses a manufacturing system (abs; fig 1-18), however Szapucki does not disclose a second opening formed through the recessed positioning area; and a second vacuum generating device coupled to the second opening.
Magariya discloses a manufacturing system (abs; fig 1-16), comprising a second opening (3) formed through the recessed positioning area (30a) and a second vacuum generating device ([0014]) coupled to the second opening (3) ([0011]-[0014]; [0016]-[0020]; [0024]-[0029]; fig 2-6, 8-16). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a second opening (3) formed through the recessed positioning area (30a) and a second vacuum generating device ([0014]) coupled to the second opening (3) in the system of Szapucki, because Magariya teaches the use of a second opening (3) formed through the recessed positioning area (30a) and a second vacuum generating device ([0014]) coupled to the second opening (3) for vacuuming the printed wiring board (substrate 5) and holding the printed wiring board (substrate 5) and the stencil mask (4) that covers the surface of the printed wiring board (substrate 5) in a superimposed state ([0013]-[0014]).
Regarding claim 18, the recitation “a substrate disposed in…is less than a thickness of the substrate”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Magariya since Magariya meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of having a substrate disposed in the recessed positioning area, wherein a depth of the recessed positioning area into the printing pallet is capable of being less than a thickness of the substrate, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 18, Szapucki discloses a manufacturing system (abs; fig 1-18), however Szapucki does not disclose a substrate disposed in the recessed positioning area, wherein a depth of the recessed positioning area into the printing pallet is less than a thickness of the substrate.
Magariya discloses a manufacturing system (abs; fig 1-16), comprising a substrate (5) disposed in the recessed positioning area (30a), wherein a depth of the recessed positioning area (30a) into the printing pallet (30) can be less than a thickness of the substrate (5) ([0011]-[0014]; [0016]-[0020]; [0024]-[0029]; fig 2-6, 8-16). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a substrate (5) disposed in the recessed positioning area (30a), wherein a depth of the recessed positioning area (30a) into the printing pallet (30) can be less than a thickness of the substrate (5) in the system of Szapucki, because Magariya teaches the use of a substrate (5) disposed in the recessed positioning area (30a), wherein a depth of the recessed positioning area (30a) into the printing pallet (30) can be less than a thickness of the substrate (5) for vacuuming the printed wiring board (substrate 5) and holding the printed wiring board (substrate 5) and the stencil mask (4) that covers the surface of the printed wiring board (substrate 5) in a superimposed state ([0013]-[0014]).
As regards to claim 19, Szapucki discloses a manufacturing system (abs; fig 1-18), however Szapucki does not disclose a base carrier delivery module disposed adjacent to the printing pallet module.
Magariya discloses a manufacturing system (abs; fig 1-16), comprising further including a base carrier vacuum delivery module (20) disposed adjacent to (see fig 1) the printing pallet module (1) ([0011]-[0014]; [0016]-[0020]; [0024]-[0029]; fig 2-6, 8-16). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a base carrier vacuum delivery module (20) disposed adjacent to (see fig 1) the printing pallet module (1) in the system of Szapucki, because Magariya teaches the use of a base carrier vacuum delivery module (20) disposed adjacent to (see fig 1) the printing pallet module (1) for vacuuming the printed wiring board (substrate 5) and holding the printed wiring board (substrate 5) and the stencil mask (4) that covers the surface of the printed wiring board (substrate 5) in a superimposed state ([0013]-[0014]).
13. Claims 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szapucki et al. (US 6,244,641 B1) hereinafter Szapucki in view of Magariya (JP 2016179669 A) hereinafter Magariya (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Szapucki and Magariya are included between parentheses).
As regards to claim 21, Szapucki discloses a manufacturing system (abs; fig 1-18), comprising:
a bottom support block (14) (col 4, ln 1-49; fig 2);
a transfer arm module (2/30) disposed over the bottom support block (14), wherein the transfer arm module (2/30) includes a flat bottom surface (36) and an opening (38) formed through the flat bottom surface (36) (col 4, ln 1-49; col 5, ln 17-col 6, ln 17; fig 2-8); and
a vacuum generating device (col 4, ln 1-49; col 5, ln 17-col 6, ln 17) coupled to the opening (38) of the transfer arm module (2/30) (col 4, ln 1-49; col 5, ln 17-col 6, ln 17; fig 2-8), however Szapucki does not disclose a printing pallet disposed adjacent to the transfer arm module (2/30), wherein the printing pallet includes a recessed positioning area configured to receive a substrate.
Magariya discloses a manufacturing system (abs; fig 1-16), comprising a printing pallet module (1) comprising a printing pallet (30), wherein the printing pallet (30) includes a recessed positioning area (30a) configured to receive a substrate (5) ([0011]-[0014]; fig 2-6, 8-16). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a printing pallet module (1) comprising a printing pallet (30), wherein the printing pallet (30) includes a recessed positioning area (30a) configured to receive a substrate (5) in the system of Szapucki, because Magariya teaches the use of a printing pallet module (1) comprising a printing pallet (30), wherein the printing pallet (30) includes a recessed positioning area (30a) configured to receive a substrate (5) that holds the printed wiring board (substrate 5) and the stencil mask (4) that covers the surface of the printed wiring board (substrate 5) in a superimposed state ([0013]), wherein disposing the printing pallet module (1) comprising the printing pallet (30) of Magariya adjacent to the transfer arm module (2/30) of Szapucki to have the configuration recited in the claim is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way since “the particular placement of structural components was held to be an obvious matter of design choice.” In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
As regards to claim 22, Szapucki discloses a manufacturing system (abs; fig 1-18), the bottom support block (14) and the substrate (16) (col 4, ln 1-49; fig 2), however Szapucki does not disclose the bottom support block (14) is configured to be raised to physically contact the substrate when the substrate is disposed over the bottom support block (14).
Magariya discloses a manufacturing system (abs; fig 1-16), wherein the bottom support block (42) is configured to be raised to physically contact the substrate (5) via printing pallet module (1) comprising a printing pallet (30) when the substrate (5) is disposed over the bottom support block (42) ([0011]-[0014]; [0016]-[0021]; [0024]-[0029]; fig 2-6, 8-16). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the bottom support block (42) is configured to be raised to physically contact the substrate (5) via printing pallet module (1) comprising a printing pallet (30) when the substrate (5) is disposed over the bottom support block (42) in the system of Szapucki, because Magariya teaches the use of wherein the bottom support block (42) is configured to be raised to physically contact the substrate (5) via printing pallet module (1) comprising a printing pallet (30) when the substrate (5) is disposed over the bottom support block (42) for raising and vacuuming the printed wiring board (substrate 5) and holding the printed wiring board (substrate 5) and the stencil mask (4) that covers the surface of the printed wiring board (substrate 5) in a superimposed state ([0013]-[0014]).
As regards to claim 23, Szapucki discloses a manufacturing system (abs; fig 1-18), wherein the bottom support block (14) includes a locating sensor (20) for supporting and detecting/focusing the vacuum suction securing the substrate 16 (col 4, ln 1-49; col 5, ln 17-col 6, ln 17; fig 2-8).
As regards to claim 24, Szapucki discloses a manufacturing system (abs; fig 1-18), however Szapucki does not disclose a second opening formed through the recessed positioning area; and a second vacuum generating device coupled to the second opening.
Magariya discloses a manufacturing system (abs; fig 1-16), comprising a second opening (3) formed through the recessed positioning area (30a) and a second vacuum generating device ([0014]) coupled to the second opening (3) ([0011]-[0014]; [0016]-[0020]; [0024]-[0029]; fig 2-6, 8-16). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a second opening (3) formed through the recessed positioning area (30a) and a second vacuum generating device ([0014]) coupled to the second opening (3) in the system of Szapucki, because Magariya teaches the use of a second opening (3) formed through the recessed positioning area (30a) and a second vacuum generating device ([0014]) coupled to the second opening (3) for vacuuming the printed wiring board (substrate 5) and holding the printed wiring board (substrate 5) and the stencil mask (4) that covers the surface of the printed wiring board (substrate 5) in a superimposed state ([0013]-[0014]).
As regards to claim 25, Szapucki discloses a manufacturing system (abs; fig 1-18), however Szapucki does not disclose wherein the printing pallet further includes a release channel extending from within the recessed positioning area to outside of the recessed positioning area.
Magariya discloses a manufacturing system (abs; fig 1-16), wherein the printing pallet (30) further includes a release channel (3) extending from within the recessed positioning area (30a) to outside of the recessed positioning area (30a)([0011]-[0014]; [0016]-[0020]; [0024]-[0029]; fig 2-6, 8-16). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the printing pallet (30) further includes a release channel (3) extending from within the recessed positioning area (30a) to outside of the recessed positioning area (30a) in the system of Szapucki, because Magariya teaches the use of wherein the printing pallet (30) further includes a release channel (3) extending from within the recessed positioning area (30a) to outside of the recessed positioning area (30a) for vacuuming the printed wiring board (substrate 5) and holding the printed wiring board (substrate 5) and the stencil mask (4) that covers the surface of the printed wiring board (substrate 5) in a superimposed state ([0013]-[0014]).
As regards to claim 26, Szapucki discloses a manufacturing system (abs; fig 1-18), however Szapucki does not disclose a substrate disposed in the recessed positioning area.
Magariya discloses a manufacturing system (abs; fig 1-16), comprising a substrate (5) disposed in the recessed positioning area (30a) ([0011]-[0014]; [0016]-[0020]; [0024]-[0029]; fig 2-6, 8-16). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a substrate (5) disposed in the recessed positioning area (30a) in the system of Szapucki, because Magariya teaches the use of a substrate (5) disposed in the recessed positioning area (30a) for vacuuming the printed wiring board (substrate 5) and holding the printed wiring board (substrate 5) and the stencil mask (4) that covers the surface of the printed wiring board (substrate 5) in a superimposed state ([0013]-[0014]).
As regards to claim 27, Szapucki discloses a manufacturing system (abs; fig 1-18), however Szapucki does not disclose a base carrier delivery module disposed adjacent to the printing pallet module.
Magariya discloses a manufacturing system (abs; fig 1-16), comprising further including a base carrier vacuum delivery module (20) disposed adjacent to (see fig 1) the printing pallet (30) ([0011]-[0014]; [0016]-[0020]; [0024]-[0029]; fig 2-6, 8-16). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a base carrier vacuum delivery module (20) disposed adjacent to (see fig 1) the printing pallet (30) in the system of Szapucki, because Magariya teaches the use of a base carrier vacuum delivery module (20) disposed adjacent to (see fig 1) the printing pallet (30) for vacuuming the printed wiring board (substrate 5) and holding the printed wiring board (substrate 5) and the stencil mask (4) that covers the surface of the printed wiring board (substrate 5) in a superimposed state ([0013]-[0014]).
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: all references cited on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited excluding the above relied upon references.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jethro M Pence whose telephone number is (571)270-7423. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00 A.M. - 6:30 P.M..
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, Dah-Wei D. Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/Jethro M. Pence/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
