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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 7 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention (Invention II), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 29, 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1 – 6) in the reply filed on January 29, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
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:
“adsorption portion” recited in claim 1
“drive mechanism” recited in claim 1
“drive source” recited in claim 2
“pressure portion” recited in claim 2
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.
The limitation “adsorption portion” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“portion”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (‘which is configured to adsorb the cap member,’ see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below)
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “adsorption portion” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘a plurality of suction holes,’ as taught by the Specification (paragraph 47), or an equivalent thereof.
The limitation “drive mechanism” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“mechanism”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (‘which is configured to open and close the chuck mechanism,’ see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below)
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The limitation “drive source” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“source”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (‘which is configured to move the drive member in the vertical direction,’ see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below)
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “drive source” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘an actuator or servomotor,’ as taught by the Specification (paragraph 56), or an equivalent thereof.
The limitation “pressure portion” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“portion”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (‘which is configured move the adsorption portion to a first height facing the cap member, and further configured to move the adsorption portion to a second height which is higher than the first height,’ see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below)
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
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 – 6 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.
The preamble to claim 1 recites “a workpiece holding device which holds a complex workpiece ...” It is generally unclear as to whether Applicant intends the preamble to be directed towards combination the ‘workpiece holding device’ and the ‘complex workpiece,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to be directed only towards the ‘workpiece holding device,’ wherein the ‘workpiece holding device’ is configured to ‘hold the complex workpiece.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the preamble as “a workpiece holding device which is configured to hold a complex workpiece ...”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “an adsorption member ... which supports the complex workpiece” in the first paragraph of the body of the claim. Examiner notes that the preamble of the claim is being interpreted so as to be directed towards ‘a workpiece holding device configured to hold the complex workpiece.’ Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require the ‘adsorption member’ to ‘support the complex workpiece,’ such that the claim is directed towards ‘a method of supporting the complex workpiece via a workpiece holding device,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the ‘adsorption member.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “an adsorption member ... which is configured to support the complex workpiece.”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “an adsorption portion which adsorbs the cap member” in the first paragraph of the body of the claim. Examiner notes that the preamble of the claim is being interpreted so as to be directed towards ‘a workpiece holding device configured to hold the complex workpiece.’ Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require the ‘adsorption portion’ to ‘adsorb the cap member,’ such that the claim is directed towards ‘a method of supporting the complex workpiece via a workpiece holding device,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the ‘adsorption portion.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “an adsorption portion which is configured to adsorb the cap member.”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “a chuck mechanism which comprises a first chuck member and a second chuck member moving so as to open and close each other, and sandwiches, of the pin member, a portion which is not covered with the cap member ...” in the second paragraph of the body of the claim. The limitation is indefinite for several reasons. First, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to require that the each of the ‘first and second chuck member’ or only the ‘second chuck members’ act to ‘move so as to open and close ...’ Secondly, Examiner notes that the preamble of the claim is being interpreted so as to be directed towards ‘a workpiece holding device configured to hold the complex workpiece.’ Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require the ‘first and second chuck members’ to ‘move so as to open and close each other, and sandwiches, of the pin member, a portion which is not covered with the cap member,’ such that the claim is directed towards ‘a method of supporting the complex workpiece via a workpiece holding device,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the ‘first and second chuck members.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a chuck mechanism which comprises a first chuck member and a second chuck member, wherein the first chuck member and the second chuck member are each configured to move so as to open and close relative to each other and to sandwich a portion of the pin member which is not covered with the cap member ...”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “a drive mechanism which opens and closes the chuck mechanism” in the last paragraph of the claim. Examiner notes that the preamble of the claim is being interpreted so as to be directed towards ‘a workpiece holding device.’ Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require the ‘drive mechanism’ to ‘open and close the chuck mechanism,’ such that the claim is directed towards ‘a method of operating a workpiece holding device,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the ‘drive mechanism.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a drive mechanism which is configured to open and close the chuck mechanism.”
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a drive source which moves the drive member ...” Examiner notes that the claim is being interpreted so as to be directed towards ‘a workpiece holding device.’ Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require the ‘drive source to ‘move the drive member,’ such that the claim is directed towards ‘a method of operating a workpiece holding device,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the ‘drive source.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a drive source which is configured to move the drive member.”
Claim 2 further recites the limitation “the pressure portion moves the adsorption portion to a first height ... and moves the adsorption portion to a second height ...” Examiner notes that the claim is being interpreted so as to be directed towards ‘a workpiece holding device.’ Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require the ‘pressure portion’ to ‘move the adsorption portion to a first height and a second height,’ such that the claim is directed towards ‘a method of operating a workpiece holding device,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the ‘pressure portion.” For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the pressure portion being configured to move the adsorption portion to a first height ... and further configured to move the adsorption portion to a second height.”
Claim 2 further recites the limitation “the cam portion moves the chuck mechanism to an open position...” Examiner notes that the claim is being interpreted so as to be directed towards ‘a workpiece holding device.’ Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require the ‘cam portion’ to ‘move the chuck mechanism to an open position,’ such that the claim is directed towards ‘a method of operating a workpiece holding device,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the “cam portion.” For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the cam portion is configured to move the chuck mechanism to an open position ...”
Claim 2 further recites the limitation “the cam portion moves the chuck mechanism from the open position...” Examiner notes that the claim is being interpreted so as to be directed towards ‘a workpiece holding device.’ Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require the ‘cam portion’ to ‘move the chuck mechanism from the open position,’ such that the claim is directed towards ‘a method of operating a workpiece holding device,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the “cam portion.” For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the cam portion is configured to move the chuck mechanism from the open position ...”
Claim 4 recites the limitation “both sides of the adsorption portion.” Because the claim does not previously set forth the ‘adsorption portion’ having a ‘side,’ there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a first axis which rotatably support the first chuck member.” Examiner notes that “axis” is commonly defined by Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary as “a straight line about which a body or geometric figure rotates or may be supposed to rotate” and “a straight line which respect to which a body or figure is symmetrical.” Because an “axis” is commonly defined as being a “straight line,” it is generally unclear as to how the ‘first axis’ can “rotatably support” the ‘first chuck member.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the first chuck member is rotatably supported about a first axis.”
Claim 5 further recites the limitation “a second axis which rotatably support the second chuck member.” Examiner notes that “axis” is commonly defined by Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary as “a straight line about which a body or geometric figure rotates or may be supposed to rotate” and “a straight line which respect to which a body or figure is symmetrical.” Because an “axis” is commonly defined as being a “straight line,” it is generally unclear as to how the ‘second axis’ can “rotatably support” the ‘second chuck member.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the second chuck member is rotatably supported about a second axis.”
Claim 5 further recites the limitation “a spring which urges the first chuck member and the second chuck member such that they close each other.” Examiner notes that the claim is being interpreted so as to be directed towards ‘a workpiece holding device.’ Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require the ‘spring’ to ‘urge the first and second chuck members such that they close each other,’ such that the claim is directed towards ‘a method of operating a workpiece holding device,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the “spring.” For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a spring which is configured to urge the first chuck member and the second chuck member such that they close each other.”
Claims 5 and 6 each recite the limitation “the other side surface.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the claims.
As explained above, the claim limitations “drive mechanism” and “pressure portion” each invoke 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. Regarding the limitation “drive mechanism,” as recited in claim 1, Examiner recognizes that the Specification teaches that the “drive mechanism” comprises ‘a drive member which is configured to be movable in a vertical direction and a drive source which is configured to move the drive member in the vertical direction, wherein the drive source comprises an actuator or servomotor, wherein the drive member comprises a vertical drive portion and a chuck drive portion, wherein the chuck drive portion comprises a first cam portion and a second cam portion, wherein the vertical drive portion comprises pressure portion that is configured to move the adsorption portion to a first height facing the cap member and a second height which is higher than the first height’ (paragraphs 10 – 11 and 56 – 57). However, as explained above, Examiner is reasonably interpreting the “pressure portion” as also invoking interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Furthermore, the Specification does not teach the structure required for the ‘pressure portion’ to perform the claimed function of ‘moving the adsorption portion to a first height facing the cap member and a second height which is higher than the first height.’ Therefore, the limitation “drive mechanism” is indefinite is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Regarding the limitation “pressure portion,” as recited in claim 2, Examiner notes that the Specification does not teach the structure required for the ‘pressure portion’ to perform the claimed function (paragraphs 10 – 11 and 56 – 57). Therefore, the limitation “pressure portion” is indefinite 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 1, as explained above, the limitation “drive mechanism” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). As further explained above, the Specification fails to teach sufficient structure of the ‘drive mechanism’ to perform the claimed function. Therefore, the limitation is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 2, as explained above, the limitation “pressure portion” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). As further explained above, the Specification fails to teach sufficient structure of the ‘pressure portion’ to perform the claimed function. Therefore, the limitation is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The only limitation of dependent claim 3 recites “the drive member comprises the cam portion and the pressure portion,” which was previously required by independent claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 - 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokota (Japanese Patent Publication Number JP 61-256004 A).
As to claim 1, Yokota teaches a workpiece holding device which is configured to hold a complex workpiece (machine translation, page 4, ‘Field of the Invention’), and comprises: an adsorption member provided which is configured to support the complex workpiece (figures 1 – 5, element 9 being the ‘adsorption member’; machine translation, page 4, ‘Example’), and comprising an adsorption portion, comprising a plurality of suction holes, which is configured to adsorb a cap member of the complex workpiece (figures 1 – 5, elements 22 and 23 being the ‘adsorption portion’ and ‘suction holes’; machine translation, page 4, ‘Example’). Examiner notes that this can be found because Yokota teaches the adsorption member comprising a plurality of suction holes which are at least capable of being to a vacuum (figures 1 – 5, elements 22 and 23; machine translation, page 4, ‘Example’). It is the position of the Examiner that, when a vacuum pulls air through the suction holes, the suction holes are able and configured to adsorb a cap member of the complex workpiece. Yokota further teaches a chuck mechanism which comprises a first chuck member and a second chuck member (figures 1 - 5, element 12 being the ‘first chuck member’ and element 13 being the ‘second chuck member; machine translation, page 4, ‘Example’), wherein the first chuck member and the second chuck member are each configured to move so as to open and close relative to each other and to sandwich a portion of the pin member which is not covered with the cap member in a state where the cap member is adsorbed to the adsorption portion (figures 1 – 5, elements 12, 13, and 9; machine translation, pages 4, ‘Example’); and a drive mechanism which is configured to open and close the chuck mechanism and comprises a drive member which is configured to be movable in a vertical direction and a drive source which is configured to move the drive member in the vertical direction, wherein the drive source comprises an air compressor, wherein the drive member comprises a vertical drive portion and a chuck drive portion, wherein the chuck drive portion comprises a first cam portion and a second cam portion, wherein the vertical drive portion comprises pressure portion (figures 1 – 5, element 10 being the and ‘drive member,’ see below; machine translation, pages 3 – 4, ‘Summary of the Invention’ and ‘Operation’). Examiner notes that the drive source can be found because Yokota teaches that the drive member is movable in the vertical direction via compressed air that is blown into the suction holes (figures 4 and 5, elements 22 and 23; machine translation, page 4, ‘Example’). This inherently requires some type of air compressor that is connected to the suction holes.
PNG
media_image1.png
499
769
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, while Yokota teaches the complex workpiece be located below the workpiece holding device (figure 1, element 24 being the ‘complex workpiece’; machine translation, page 4, ‘Example’), Yokota does not teach the complex workpiece being supported by a jig. Examiner takes Official Notice that it is known in the art to support a workpiece via a jig placed underneath a workpiece holding device prior to the workpiece holding device grasping and holding the workpiece, so as to properly secure the workpiece while the workpiece holding device can be moved to a position over the workpiece. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the workpiece holding device of Yokota grasping and holding the complex workpiece, to support the complex workpiece via a jig underneath the workpiece holding device, so as to properly secure the complex workpiece while the workpiece holding device is moved to a position over the complex workpiece, as taught by Yokota (figure 1, element 24; machine translation, page 4, ‘Example’).
As to claim 4, Yokota teaches a pair of positioning pins extending downward on both sides of the adsorption portion of a lower surface of the adsorption member (figures 1 – 5, elements 20 and 21 being the ‘positioning pins’).
As to claim 5, Yokota teaches that the first chuck member is rotatably supported about a first axis (figures 1 – 5, element 14a indicating the ‘first axis’; machine translation, page 4, ‘Example’) and the second chuck member is rotatably supported about a second axis (figures 1 – 5, element 14b indicating the ‘second axis’; machine translation, page 4, ‘Example’); a spring which is configured to urge the first chuck member and the second chuck member such that they close each other (figures 1 - 5, element 16 being the ‘spring’; machine translation, page 4, ‘Example’); a first gap portion defined between a side surface of the adsorption member and the first chuck member (figure 1, elements 9 and 12, see below); and a second gap portion defined between an other side surface of the adsorption member and the second chuck member (figure 1, elements 9 and 13, see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
499
812
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yokota further teaches that the first chuck member and the second chuck member are rotatably around the first axis and the second axis, respectively, in a state where the chuck mechanism is closed (figure 5, elements 12, 13, 14a, and 14b; machine translation, page 4, ‘Example’).
As to claim 6, Yokota teaches that a shim member is provided between a side surface of the adsorption member and the first chuck member (figure 2, element 15 being the ‘shim member’ and elements 9 and 12,’ see below).
PNG
media_image3.png
474
378
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (EST).
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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726