Detailed Action1
America Invents Act Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 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.
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 limitations are: vacuum source and positioning assembly in claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Thus, vacuum source is interpreted as a vacuum pump, and, positioning assembly is interpreted as a gantry/bridge configured to move in a first direction over the plate, and wherein the optical assembly is connected to the gantry/bridge so that the gantry/bridge can move the optical assembly in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction.
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.
Rejections under 35 USC 1032
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 obvious3 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 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.
Claims 1-4 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR-100868471-B1 (“Okano”) in view of GB-2109716-A (“Wood”) and USPGPub No. 2019/0143489 (“Munkel”).
Regarding claim 1, Okano teaches a system, comprising: a plate having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface (figs. 2 & 3, i.e. plate on element 1, see also middle of page 3 discussing the stage, top of page 4 discussing the stage plate, wherein all references to the Okano specification refer to the machine translation submitted herewith), an optical assembly (4) disposed on an opposite side of the flexible substrate from the plate (fig. 3, middle to bottom of page 5); a positioning assembly (3) configured to position the optical assembly over the flexible substrate (figs. 2-3, middle to bottom of page 5 & middle of page 6), wherein the positioning assembly is configured to move along at least one axis, and wherein the positioning assembly is configured to move the optical assembly (figs. 2-3, middle to bottom of page 5 & middle of page 6); and a control unit configured to send instructions to the optical assembly, the positioning assembly. Okano teaches an automatic repair process where the gantry 3 and optical assembly operate via known coordinates (page 2 & middle to bottom of page 6). Given this disclosure and the figures, one of skill in the art will reasonably infer that a control unit is provided that sends instructions to the gantry and optical assembly to position them in the proper position during the repair process.
Claim 1 also recites the plate is configured to receive on the first surface a flexible substrate comprising a first section having a first flexibility and a second section having a second flexibility different from the first flexibility. This is an intended use limitation. Thus, the plate of Okano merely has to have a structure capable of receiving the claimed flexible substrate. The plate of Okano has a flat top surface configured to support an LCD, PDP, or FPD (figs. 2-3, page 2). Thus, the plate of Okano is capable of supporting the claimed flexible substrate since LCDs, PDPs, and FPDs can all be made flexible.
Okano fails to explicitly teach the plate has through-holes (TH), between the first and second surfaces; a vacuum source, which is configured to draw a vacuum in the TH between the first surface and the second surface for fixing the first section to the first pattern and the second section to the second pattern, and wherein the control unit is configured to send instructions to the vacuum source. However, this would be obvious in view of Munkel.
Munkel is directed to a holding device for rigid or flexible sheets and boards such as circuit boards (¶ [0001]-[0002] & [0004]). The holding device includes a suction plate 2 having a plurality of suction openings 4 (figs. 1-2, ¶ [0042]). The system comprises a regulating facility 9, i.e. computer, that is connected to various components of the system including camera 13, suction device 9, distribution facility 6, suction pulse facility 10 and switching valves 8 (¶ [0042]-[0043]). Use of a suction plate allows a substrate to be fixed thereto during processing in a more efficient way and without damaging the substrate (¶ [0005]-[0009]).
In this case, Okano is directed to repairing a flat electronic component that is supported from below by a plate. Munkel teaches that it is known to secure rigid or flexible electronic components via a suction plate having a plurality of through holes connected to a vacuum source, and a computer (i.e. control unit) is configured to communicate with and operate all the parts of the system including the vacuum source. Thus, it would be obvious to modify Okano so that the plate is a suction plate with a plurality of through holes having the structure taught by Munkel extending between opposite first and second surfaces and that are connected to a vacuum source, and wherein the control unit of Okano controls all aspects of the system including being in communication with the vacuum source. This will predictably allow the substrate of Okano to be fixed to the plate in an efficient manner and without damaging the substrate.
Okano et al. fail to explicitly teach a variable density that varies from a first pattern arranged in a first density opposite the first section to a second pattern arranged in a second density, different from the first density, opposite the second section. However, this would have been obvious in view of Wood.
Wood discloses a vacuum workpiece holder for a variety of articles such as rigid or semi-rigid blocks, plates or sheets of metal, wood or plastic or such as flexible sheets of paper, cardboard, plastic or composite material (page 1 lines 4-12 & 72-79). Wood teaches a plate (98) having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface (figs. 2 & 12, page 4 lines 54-72, i.e. the first surface being top surface comprising openings for cells 100 and the second surface being the opposite facing surface between openings 34 & space 30), the plate is configured to receive on the first surface a flexible substrate comprising a first section having a first flexibility and a second section having a second flexibility different from the first flexibility (due to the first surface being planar, it is capable of receiving such a workpiece), wherein the plate has through-holes (22/34 illustrated in fig. 2, wherein the holes of fig. 12 can be same as those of fig. 2—see page 4 lines 67-72), between the first and second surfaces (fig. 2), with a variable density that varies from a first pattern arranged in a first density opposite the first section (fig. 12, i.e. pattern on top left) to a second pattern arranged in a second density, different from the first density, opposite the second section (i.e. pattern on the bottom right) (fig. 12, page 4 lines 54-101); and a vacuum pump (35), which is configured to draw a vacuum in the TH between the first surface and the second surface for fixing the first section to the first pattern and the second section to the second pattern (figs. 2-3, page 2 lines 87-119). The structure of the suction plate of Wood allows the plate to better hold workpieces of different sizes (page 1 lines 4-12 & page 4 lines 54-101).
In this case, Okano et al. is directed to repairing a flat electronic component that is supported from below by a vacuum plate. Wood (also directed to supporting rigid or flexible substrates via a vacuum plate) teaches that providing through-holes with variable density can allow the plate to better hold substrates of various sizes (wherein smaller substates can be placed in the area with a higher density of through holes), and teaches that it is known and predictable for the vacuum source to be a vacuum pump. Thus, to better hold substrates of varying sizes, it would be obvious to modify Okano et al. so that the vacuum source is a a vacuum pump, wherein the plurality of through holes have a variable density that varies from a first pattern arranged in a first density to a second pattern arranged in a second density, different from the first density.
Given the above modification, the first section of a flexible substrate is capable of being placed over the first pattern of through holes, and the second section of the flexible substrate is capable of being placed over the second pattern of through holes.
Claim 2 recites at least one of the TH has a first cavity extended from the first surface into the plate and having a first shape, and a second cavity that is:(i) extended from the second surface into the plate, (ii) connected to the first cavity and (iii) having a second shape, and wherein at least one of the first shape or the second shape comprises a conical shape. As detailed in the rejection to claim 1, above, the through holes of the vacuum plate have the shape taught by Munkel, wherein the through holes have a first cavity comprising suction opening 4 having diameter 100 and extending from the first surface, and a second cavity (6b or 5 have diameter 101 depending on what is interpreted as the second surface) having a different size, extending from the second surface of the plate, and directly or indirectly connected to the first cavity (see figs. 2-3 of Munkel, ¶ [0049]-[0050]). Munkel teaches that the first cavity between suction opening 4 and suction nozzle 5 can be conical towards the suction nozzle (¶ [0051] of Munkel). Thus, it would be obvious and predictable to substitute the first cavity between opening 4 and suction nozzle as illustrated in fig. 2 of Munkel with a funnel-shaped, i.e. conical, cavity.
Claim 3 recites when all the TH have the first cavity, at least twenty percent of the first surface is perforated with the first cavity. Since the through holes of Okano et al. have different sized first cavities (i.e. have differing first cavities), this limitation does not have to be met since the optional limitation “when all the TH have the first cavity” is not met.
The examiner also notes that it would be routine optimization to choose a size and spacing of the through holes that achieve this claim limitation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). One of skill in the art appreciates that how well the suction plate holds substrates of varying sizes is related to the diameter and spacing of the through holes (see page 4 lines 82-101 of Wood). Determining a workable range of the diameters of the smallest through holes, rate of change of the diameters of the through holes, spacing between the smallest through holes, and rate of change of the spacing of the through holes can easily be determined via routine experimentation since these modifications and their effects can predictably be done relatively quickly with computer software. Thus, there would be a reasonable expectation of success of determining workable ranges of the diameters of the through holes and spacing of the through holes of Okano et al. so that at least twenty percent of the first surface is perforated with the first cavity.
Regarding claim 4, Okano et al. fail to explicitly teach at least one of the TH has a diameter, which is measured on the first surface, and is smaller than 1 mm. However, MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) states that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In this case, the only difference from the claim and Okano et al. is the diameter of the smallest through hole. Merely scaling the device of Okano et al. down so that the smallest through hole is less than 1 mm would not make the device of Okano et al. perform differently since it would still be able to hold substrates thereon.
Claim 8 recites the flexible substrate has a third section, which is positioned between the first section and the second section and has a third flexibility, which is smaller than the first flexibility and larger than the second flexibility, wherein the plate has a third pattern, which is positioned between the first pattern and the second pattern and is arranged in a third density opposite the third section, and wherein the third density is smaller than the first density and larger than the second density. When viewing fig. 12 of Wood, the density of the through holes gradually decreases from the first pattern to the second pattern (see also page 4 lines 54-88). Thus, a middle third pattern of the through holes (in the middle of the first pattern at the top left and the second pattern at the bottom right) has a third density smaller than the first density and greater than the second density. In addition, the substrate is capable of having the claimed third section of a substrate arranged on the third pattern.
Regarding claim 9, Wood further teaches the variable density varies gradually from the first density to the second density via the third density (fig. 12, page 4 lines 54-88).
Claim 10 recites the flexible substrate comprises a flexible circuit board, and wherein the vacuum source is configured to draw the vacuum in the TH for performing on the flexible circuit board at least a process selected from a list of processes consisting of: (i) a production process, (ii) a repairing process, and (iii) an inspection process. The examiner notes that the flexible circuit board is not a positively recited element, thus, the system of Okano et al. merely has to be capable of these limitations. Since Okano teaches a repair system for electronic components (see page 2), one of skill in the art will appreciate that the system of Okano et al. is capable of having a flexible circuit board fixed thereon so that it can be inspected, repaired, or have a manufacturing process performed thereon.
In the alternative, claims 1, 4, 6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okano in view of Wood and Munkel.
Regarding claim 1, Okano in view of Wood and Munkel teach all the limitations of claim 1 as detailed in the previous rejection of claim 1, above. This rejection differs from the previous rejection in that the structure of the plate and through holes of Wood is used in the system of Okano, instead of the structure of the plate and through holes of Munkel. With this modification, Munkel provides further teaching that it is predictable to use a vacuum plate as disclosed in Wood to hold electronic components such as those taught by Okano. In addition, Munkel teaches that it is predictable and obvious for a control unit to control all aspects of the system including the vacuum pump.
Regarding claim 4, Okano et al. fail to explicitly teach at least one of the TH has a diameter, which is measured on the first surface, and is smaller than 1 mm. However, MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) states that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In this case, the only difference from the claim and Okano et al. is the diameter of the smallest through hole. Merely scaling the device of Okano et al. down so that the smallest through hole is less than 1 mm would not make the device of Okano et al. perform differently since it would still be able to hold substrates thereon.
Claim 6 recites one or more pillars, which are formed on the second surface between two or more of the TH that are adjacent, and are configured to improve a uniformity of the vacuum applied through the plate. As illustrated in figs. 2 & 9-10 of Wood, rectangular pillars extend downward from the second surface and within a vacuum space 30 connected to all the through holes (page 2 lines 87-96, wherein the second surface is interpreted as the surface that opening 34 extends upward from). Thus, these pillars help space the plate 32 from the second surface to form the vacuum space 30—the vacuum space being capable of improving uniformity of the vacuum since all the through holes are connected to the vacuum space 30, thereby allowing the vacuum to be distributed evenly.
Claim 8 recites the flexible substrate has a third section, which is positioned between the first section and the second section and has a third flexibility, which is smaller than the first flexibility and larger than the second flexibility, wherein the plate has a third pattern, which is positioned between the first pattern and the second pattern and is arranged in a third density opposite the third section, and wherein the third density is smaller than the first density and larger than the second density. When viewing fig. 12 of Wood, the density of the through holes gradually decreases from the first pattern to the second pattern (see also page 4 lines 54-88). Thus, a middle third pattern of the through holes (in the middle of the first pattern at the top left and the second pattern at the bottom right) has a third density smaller than the first density and greater than the second density. In addition, the substrate is capable of having the claimed third section of a flexible substrate arranged on the third pattern.
Regarding claim 9, Wood further teaches the variable density varies gradually from the first density to the second density via the third density (fig. 12, page 4 lines 54-88).
Claim 10 recites the flexible substrate comprises a flexible circuit board, and wherein the vacuum source is configured to draw the vacuum in the TH for performing on the flexible circuit board at least a process selected from a list of processes consisting of: (i) a production process, (ii) a repairing process, and (iii) an inspection process. The examiner notes that the flexible circuit board is not a positively recited element, thus, the system of Okano et al. merely has to be capable of these limitations. Since Okano teaches a repair system for electronic components (see page 2), one of skill in the art will appreciate that the system of Okano et al. is capable of having a flexible circuit board fixed thereon so that it can be inspected, repaired, or have a manufacturing process performed thereon.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okano et al. as applied to claim 6, above.
Regarding claim 7, Okano et al. fails to explicitly teach at least one of the pillars has a conical shape. However, MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) states that changes in shape are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration/shape is significant. In this case, each of Okano et al. and the instant invention teach pillars extending down from the second surface in order to help define a vacuum space below the through holes. While Wood teaches rectangular pillars (see figs. 2 & 9-10), providing at least one conical pillar will still allow a vacuum space 30 between the second surface and plate 32 of Wood. In addition, Applicant’s disclosure does not teach any shape being significant (see page of Applicant’s originally filed specification, i.e. “pillars 80 may have any suitable shape, such as the pillar shape shown in inset 31, or a cone shape or any other suitable shape.”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okano et al. as applied to either rejection of claim 1, above, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2019/0148208 (“Godet”).
Regarding claim 5, Okano et a. fails to explicitly teach the plate comprises stainless steel. However, this would have been obvious in view of Godet. Godet is also directed to a vacuum plate 201 configured to fix a workpiece 100 to a top surface thereof (fig. 2, paras. [0024]-[0029] & [0034]). Godet teaches that it is known to form the vacuum plate out of a variety of materials including stainless steel (para. [0025]).
In this case, each of Wood and Godet are directed to vacuum plates configured to fix a workpiece to a top surface thereof. While Wood teaches the plate being a rigid metal (see page 2 lines 57-61), Wood fails to explicitly teach stainless steel. Godet teaches one of skill in the art that stainless steel is a known metal for forming vacuum plates out of. One of skill in the art appreciates that stainless steel has excellent corrosion resistance and high strength. Since it would be predictable for the plate of Okano et al. to function as intended when formed out of stainless steel (since it is a rigid metal), it would be obvious to form the plate of Okano et al. out of stainless steel in order to provide a plate with high strength and corrosions resistance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 23, 2025 (“the remarks”) have been fully considered. The examiner agrees that the amended claims overcome the previous prior art rejections, and thus has withdrawn the previous prior art rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle Cook whose telephone number is 571-272-2281. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-3545. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner's supervisor Thomas Hong (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct quotations from claims are presented in italics. All information within non-italicized parentheses and presented with claim language are from or refer to the cited prior art reference unless explicitly stated otherwise.
2 In 103 rejections, when the primary reference is followed by “et al.”, “et al.” refers to the secondary references. For example, if Jones was modified by Smith and Johnson, subsequent recitations of “Jones et al.” mean “Jones in view of Smith and Johnson”.
3 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”