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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, Species I (claims 1-10, 12-14) in the reply filed on 5/26/2026 is acknowledged.
However, it is noted that claim 12 recites the provisioning method according to claim 15 which is a withdrawn claim 15. Therefore, claim 12 has been withdrawn from further examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 22. 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. 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 specification is objected to because the specification mentions a reference number that is not included in the drawings: 22. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a pick and place machine” in lines 4-5 should be corrected as --[[a]]the pick and place machine--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “for populating substrates with electronic components” in lines 2-3 should be corrected as --for populating substrates with the electronic components--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-3, 6, 9-10, 13-14 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance:
Claim 2 recites the broad recitation “a respective horizontal extension of the at least two pin holding volumes corresponds to at least 50% of a horizontal extension of the respective carrier plate holding volume”, and the claim also recites “in particular at least 75%, 85% or at least 95%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 3 recites the broad recitation “at least one projection on and/or as a recess in the holding plate”, and the claim also recites “in particular monolithic and/or firmly bonded” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 6 recites the broad recitation “the at least two carrier plate holding volumes and/or limiting device are rectangular” and “the at least two carrier plate holding volumes are arranged within a common plane”, and the claim also recites “in particular square, in particular wherein the at least two limiting devices each comprise at least one corner recess” and “in particular parallel to an underside of the holding plate” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation respectively.
Claim 9 recites the broad recitation “at least one first carrier plate of the at least two carrier plates is designed to hold other electronic components than a second carrier plate of the at least two carrier plates”, and the claim also recites “in particular, wherein the first carrier plate comprises at least one first plug and socket device for holding a first electronic component and wherein the second carrier plate comprises at least one second plug and socket device for holding a second electronic component, wherein the first plug and socket device and the second plug and socket device are designed differently” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 10 recites the broad recitation “wherein the support carrier plate is fastened at a distance from and to the carrier plate”, and the claim also recites “in particular wherein the support carrier plate has the same plug and socket devices as the carrier plate” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 14 recites the broad recitation “the holding system is designed according to claim 8”, and the claim also recites “in particular wherein at least one first carrier plate of the at least two carrier plates is designed to hold different electronic components than a second carrier plate of the at least two carrier plates, in particular, wherein the first carrier plate comprises at least one first plug and socket device for holding a first electronic component and wherein the second carrier plate comprises at least one second plug and socket device for holding a second electronic component, wherein the first plug and socket device and the second plug and socket device are designed differently” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
For examination purposes, such narrower languages are considered as merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Crisp (US 2005/0269242 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Crisp (‘242) discloses a holding plate (fig1) for providing electronic components (abstract, para[0048]) to a pick and place machine (abstract, para[0048], “pick and place”), the holding plate comprising at least two support devices (fig1, storage pockets) for vertically supporting in each case at least one carrier plate for electronic components (at least one carrier plate and electronic components are recited as functional limitations/intended use, therefore, it is only required for the support devices to be capable of performing the recited function) in a predetermined horizontal position on a support plane (a horizontal plane, abstract), at least one limiting device 44 (para[0046]) per support device for horizontally limiting the respective carrier plate in the predetermined horizontal position, wherein each support device together with the respective at least one limiting device forms a carrier plate holding volume (defined by inner side surface of the limiting device) for holding at least one carrier plate in the predetermined horizontal position on the support plane, wherein the holding plate has, for each carrier plate holding volume (fig1), a pin holding volume 101-124 (fig2, para[0044]) adjacent below the respective carrier plate holding volume (fig2) and the support plane for at least partially holding pins of the electronic components inserted through the carrier plate, and wherein the holding plate comprises, for each carrier plate holding volume, at least one fastening device 50,52 (para[0045]) for fastening the respective carrier plate in the respective carrier plate holding volume.
Regarding claim 2, Crisp discloses the holding plate according to characterized in that, wherein, a respective horizontal extension of the at least two pin holding volumes corresponds to at least 50% of a horizontal extension of the respective carrier plate holding volume (fig2).
Regarding claim 3, Crisp discloses the holding plate according to claim 1, wherein, the at least two limiting devices 44 are each designed as at least one projection (figs2,4) on and/or as a recess in the holding plate.
Regarding claim 4, Crisp discloses the holding plate according to claim 1, wherein, at least one of the support devices comprises at least one depth positioning device (interior side surface of an element 20, fig2) for the defined holding and vertical positioning of the respective carrier plate and/or at least one of the carrier plate holding volumes and/or the pin holding volumes (fig2) are formed in one piece, as a pocket volume (fig2) and/or as a continuous cut-out in the holding plate.
Regarding claim 5, Crisp discloses the holding plate according to claim 1, wherein, at least one of the pin holding volumes 101-124 is arranged centrally and/or centered relative to the respective carrier plate holding volume (figs1-4) and/or is evenly spaced relative to the respective carrier plate holding volume.
Regarding claim 6, Crisp discloses the holding plate according to claim 1, wherein, the at least two carrier plate holding volumes and/or limiting devices are rectangular (figs1-4) and/or the at least two carrier plate holding volumes are arranged within a common plane (figs1-4).
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(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crisp (US 2005/0269242 A1) in view of Lee et al (US 2011/0024326 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Crisp discloses the holding plate according to claim 1, however, does not explicitly disclose a use of an ID device. Lee et al (‘326) teaches a use of an ID device 120 (para[0029]), wherein the ID device 120 is designed for identification (para[0029]) of holding plate (para[0029],[0036]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Crisp to use an ID device, as taught by Lee et al, for the purpose of store an identification code to identify a corresponding holding plate (para[0029],[0036]).
Claim(s) 8-10, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crisp (US 2005/0269242 A1) in view of Szware et al (US 2002/0130759 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Crisp discloses the holding plate designed according to claim 1. However, Crisp does not explicitly disclose a use of at least two carrier plates. Szware et al (‘759) teaches a use of at least two carrier plates (elements 20 or 36, fig2a-10, different configurations) for electronic components 12. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Crisp to use multiple carrier plates, as taught by Szware et al, for the purpose of providing protection to electronic components (para[0028]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Crisp and Szware et al teaches the holding system according to claim 8, wherein at least one first carrier plate 20 (fig2a-fig8, Szware et al) of the at least two carrier plates 20 is designed to hold other electronic components than a second carrier plate 36 (fig10, Szware et al) of the at least two carrier plates (the electronic components are separately held), wherein the first and second carrier plates 20,36 are designed differently (figs2a-8, fig10, Szware et al).
Regarding claim 10¸ the combination of Crisp and Szware et al teaches the holding system according to claim 8, wherein at least one 20 (fig2a, Szware et al) of the at least two carrier plates 20,36 comprises a support carrier plate 16 (fig2a, Szware et al), wherein the support carrier plate 16 is fastened at a distance from and to the carrier plate 20 (fig2a, Szware et al).
Regarding claim 13, Crisp discloses a use of the holding plate according to claim 1 for providing electronic components 1000 to the pick and place machine. Szware et al teaches a use of electronic components arranged on carrier plates 20 (figs2a-fig8) for populating substrates with the electronic components (para[0047],[0013]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Crisp to use carrier plate, as taught by Szware et al, for the purpose of providing protection during the process.
Regarding claim 14¸ the combination of Crisp and Szware et al teaches a use of the holding system according to claim 8 for providing electronic components arranged on the carrier plates 20,36 (Szware et al) to the pick and place machine for populating substrate with the electronic components, wherein at least one first carrier plate 20 (fig2a-fig8, Szware et al) of the at least two carrier plates 20 is designed to hold other electronic components than a second carrier plate 36 (fig10, Szware et al) of the at least two carrier plates (the electronic components are separately held), wherein the first and second carrier plates 20,36 are designed differently (figs2a-8, fig10, Szware et al).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Seahee Hong whose telephone number is (571)270-5778. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-4pm ET.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/SEAHEE HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights