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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
If claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step"), they 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, if claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step"), they 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by Su et al. (hereinafter “Su”) (US 2016/0082624 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Su discloses a press for pre-sintering or sintering silicon wafers, comprising:
a lower block (see the drawing below) and an upper block (see the drawing below), wherein the lower block comprises a lower base (see the drawing below) and a lower plate (120, 122, 124) supported by the lower base and forming a lower surface (see the drawing below) for supporting a material, and wherein the upper block (see the drawing below) comprises an upper plate (112) forming an upper surface (see the drawing below) facing the lower surface (see the drawing below), the press comprising actuator means (see 114 in the drawing below) suitable to translate the lower plate and/or the upper plate between an inactive position of mutual separation (fig. 2) and an active position in which the upper surface applies a predetermined pressure to the material present on the lower surface (fig. 3),
wherein the lower plate (120) rests only on a top surface of a body of at least three compression load cells (204, 206, see the drawing below and there are 3 load cells (204, 206 in fig. 4), wherein the body of the at least three compression load cells is the only supporting element of the lower plate (120, 124) (see the drawing below), the load cell bodies being supported by the lower base so that the top surfaces are substantially coplanar with one another (see the drawing below).
Regarding the recitation "for pre-sintering or sintering silicon wafers” in the preamble, said recitation is used to describe an intended use of the press device. Recitations of intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art teaches the structures of the claimed invention, then the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, therefore, the prior art meets the claimed limitation. See In Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2111.02 and 2114(11).
PNG
media_image1.png
535
677
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, the of claim 11, wherein the load cells body is devoid of a pressure sensor (see “gauging (pressure) sensors 200, 202 maybe obmitted” in para. 42, the last two lines, and thus Su discloses the load cells body (204) is devoid of a pressure sensor).
Regarding claim 13, the of claim 11, wherein the load cells body (204) is provided with a pressure sensor suitable to detect the pressure applied by the upper surface to the silicon wafers (see para. 41, lines 5-7, which discloses “The load cells are configured to measure compressive forces acting on the upper surface of the clamping plate 122A”).
Regarding claim 14, the press of claim 11, wherein the load cells body is suitable to deflect to allow the lower plate to pivot so as to compensate for any non-parallelism between the lower surface and the upper surface and/or any non-parallelism between an upper surface of the silicon wafers and the lower and/or upper surface (see “adjusted” in para. 16, also see para. 19, 31, and 36).
Regarding claim 15, the press of claim 11, wherein the load cells bodies (204, 206) have substantially a same height (see 204, 206 in fig. 4).
Regarding claim 16, the press of claim 11, wherein the lower plate (120) is held in place by connecting bars (rotational mounting bars 220, see fig. 6 for the close-up of the bars, and figs. 2-5 for the whole picture of the press with the bars 220; also see para. 34, which discloses, “lower platen 120 comprises rotational mounting device (shown as a pair of rotational mountings 220 and 222)”) that (indirectly) “connect” the lower plate (120) to the lower base (see the drawing above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su.
Regarding claim 20, the press of claim 11, Su discloses the load cells (204) are under compression pressure from the upper plate (see the drawing above or fig. 5). Therefore, the load cells have a certain deflection due to the compression pressure. As to the three compression load cells have a maximum deflection of 0.5 mm at a nominal load, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the compression load cells having a maximum deflection of 0.5 mm at a nominal load, because such selection or determination would be the result of routine optimization and does not itself warrant patentability, as one would arrive at such optimization through routine engineering and design practice in order to design a given component with a desirable stiffness.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 17, the claim would be allowable because the prior art of record, considered alone or combination, neither anticipated nor renders obvious “wherein at least two opposite sides of the lower plate are connected to respective opposite sides of the lower base by respective connecting bars”, in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 18 would be allowable in virtue of its dependence upon claim 17.
Regarding claim 19, the claim would be allowable because the prior art of record, considered alone or combination, neither anticipated nor renders obvious, “wherein the connecting bars are connected to the lower plate and to the lower base by ball joints”, in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Su discloses the lower plate is rotated relative to the lower base (see fig. 8 and the drawing above); therefore, there is no reason to connect the connecting bars to the lower plate and the lower base by ball joints. Such connection would prevent movement of the lower plate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art listed on the attached PTO 892 are cited to show press machines having load cells.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4520. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-5pm.
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, CHRISTOPHER L TEMPLETON can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
JIMMY T. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3725
/JIMMY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights