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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because fig. 2 shows surface 102 having a lower position than surface 104, but the specification refers to first surface 102 as the “top surface,” while it refers to the second surface 104 as the “bottom surface.” Appropriate amendments (in the drawing or specification), or explanation, are required.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
¶ 7 of the as-filed specification should be amended to recite “configured to separate.”
¶ 23 of the as-filed specification should be amended to recite “an MFC.”
¶ 28 of the as-filed specification should be amended to recite “The substrates 100, with optical devices removed, are separated from the substrate carriers 302A, 302B.”
Claim Objections
Claims 14–20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14, line 9, should be amended to recite “configured to separate.”
Claims 15–20 are objected to due to dependency upon an objected-to claim.
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.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites that “the at least one build station is configured to assemble each substrate onto each respective substrate carrier.” There isn’t exact antecedent basis for “each substrate,” since independent claim 14 only mentions “a first substrate,” and there is no antecedent basis for any substrate carriers.
Claim 18 is rejected due to dependency upon a rejected claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokunaga et al. (JP 2019-155475 A, cited by the Office with translation provided) in view of Beransky et al. (US Pub. 2017/0259376).
Tokunaga discloses a system for fabricating devices, comprising:
a plurality of stages (70A1, 70A2, 70B1, 70B2), each stage disposed below a corresponding optical head of a plurality of movable optical heads (60A1, 60A2, 60B1, 60B2), each optical head corresponding to a laser source (80, 81), each optical head positioned in a staggered position relative to one another such that each laser beam path of each optical head from each corresponding laser source does not intersect one another (evident from figs. 5 and 6); and
a sorting system (20).
Tokunaga does not disclose each optical head comprising a swappable optical head.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to render Tokunaga’s optical heads swappable for common purposes, e.g. ease of maintenance and replacement. See MPEP § 2144.04.V.C.
Tokunaga does not explicitly disclose a conveyor system coupled to the plurality of stages, nor its sorting system comprising a robot capable of moving devices from the conveyor system to at least one backend storage port or to a backend processor. Instead, Tokunaga is nondescript about its unloading or carry-out unit 20.
However, Beransky discloses an analogously positioned conveyor system (50), and a sorting system (52, 60) comprising a robot (52) capable of moving devices from the conveyor system to at least one backend storage port (¶ 39, “Robot 52 stacks cut parts at the scheduled quantity at a designated location”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to design the unloading unit 20 of Tokunaga similarly to the conveyor system and robot of Beransky as a known means of sorting cut parts and cut-out sheets.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2–6 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.
Claims 7–13 are allowed.
All of claims 14–20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection, as well as the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Dependent claim 2, and independent claims 7 and 14, each require a first laser source and a second laser source.
Tokunaga is the closest prior art of record, but Tokunaga only discloses a single laser source (80) that finds its way to each of the stages via a branch unit 81, which is well-illustrated in fig. 4. Such a difference warrants an evaluation as to whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a duplication of parts with predictable results (MPEP § 2144.04.VI.B.). One could hypothesize that two laser sources instead of one could offer greater controllability, or that two laser sources could somehow improve throughput. However, these ideas and benefits are speculation, and it seems far less than likely that one of ordinary skill in the art would have tested these ideas before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Tokunaga is specifically designed to reduce the idle time of the laser processing (“It is possible to apparently reduce the idle time by alternately performing the operations in the inside processing area and superimposing them in time”). Adding an additional laser would very likely increase the idle time (by giving the system another laser that would need to do something to not be idle), and otherwise simply increase costs with no readily appreciable benefit.
Torikai et al. (JP 2012-004478 A, cited by Applicant) and Jung et al. (KR 10-1454319 B1, cited by the Office) are also relevant prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 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, Edward (Ned) F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights