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 of the following issues:
Fig. 4 appears to be a photograph that is unclear and difficult to see.
Fig. 9 is missing units for the graph.
Fig. 10 is unclear and difficult to read with inappropriate shading.
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:
The disclosure mentions the relation between the volumes of the adhesion portions and the peel strengths in paragraph [0026] but that relation only appears in Fig. 9. This relation appears to be an important part of the inventive concept and should be disclosed in the specification in order to aid in understand and clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
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:
an apparatus and an image obtainer in claim 13.
a camera in claim 14.
processing circuitry in claims 13, 17, 18, 19 and 20.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites converting the volumes of the adhesion portions into the peel strengths for the adhesion portions which fall under “mathematical concept” and possibly “mental process” groups of abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they merely include the steps of obtaining a three-dimensional image and using the image to determine a volume. The limitation is mere data gathering that is recited at a high level of generality, and is also well-understood, routine and conventional activity when expressed at this high level of generality. Claim 1 is ineligible.
Claim 2 adds the additional step of using a camera but this additional element represents well-understood, routine and conventional activity for obtaining an image.
Claim 3 adds the additional step of illuminating the adhesion portions using a line laser but this additional element represents well-understood, routine and conventional activity illuminating objects.
Claim 4 adds the additional element of the adhesions portions being a pair which does not do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5 adds the additional steps of determining the volumes of the adhesion portions. The additional steps merely identify the length, width, and height dimensions which represent well-understood, routine and conventional activity for determining a volume.
Claim 6 adds additional gathering steps that do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 7 adds additional converting steps to the mathematical concept and do not add significantly more.
Claim 8 adds additional converting steps to the mathematical concept and do not add significantly more.
Claim 9 adds the additional steps of using a camera and a line laser but this additional element represents well-understood, routine and conventional activity for illumination and obtaining an image.
Claim 13 is parallel apparatus claim to the method of claim 1 and ineligible for the same reasons above.
Claims 10 and 16 are parallel to claim 4 and ineligible for the same reasons.
Claims 11 and 17 are parallel to claim 5 and ineligible for the same reasons.
Claims 12 and 20 are parallel to claim 8 and ineligible for the same reasons.
Claims 14 is parallel to claim 2 and ineligible for the same reasons.
Claim 15 is parallel to claim 3 and ineligible for the same reasons.
Claim 18 is parallel to claim 6 and ineligible for the same reasons.
Claim 19 is parallel to claim 7 and ineligible for the same reasons.
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) 1-3 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (CN107883879) as modified by Inoue et al. (JP4544563).
Regarding claim 1, Cheng et al. (hereinafter Cheng) teaches a method of measuring peel strengths of adhesion portions between a carrier tape and a cover tape, the carrier tape including a plurality of pockets configured to receive semiconductor packages, the cover tape configured to cover the pockets, the method comprising: obtaining a three-dimensional (3D) image of the adhesion portions (abstract), and determining the width of the adhesive tape and the adhesive tape area to determine whether the gluing is qualified (abstract).
Cheng remains silent as to determining volumes of the adhesion portions from the 3D image of the adhesion portions; and converting the volumes of the adhesion portions into the peel strengths for the adhesion portions.
Inoue et al. (hereinafter Inoue) teaches an adhesive layer for a carrier tape and cover tape where the thickness is preferably about 0.2 to 60 micrometers [0035] in order to provide sufficient strength [0005].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Cheng to include measurement of the thickness, as Inoue teaches that this is important for adhesion strength, in addition to the adhesive tape area. With these measured values, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to relate the volume to the adhesion strength.
Regarding claim 2, Cheng as modified by Inoue teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the obtaining the 3D image of the adhesion portions comprises photographing the adhesion portions using a camera (linear laser generator (Cheng, Abstract)) .
Regarding claim 3, Cheng as modified by Inoue teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the obtaining the 3D image of the adhesion portions further comprises illuminating the adhesion portions using a line laser (Cheng, Abstract).
Regarding claim 13, Cheng as modified by Inoue teaches an apparatus configured to measure peel strengths of adhesion portions between a carrier tape and a cover tape, the carrier tape including a plurality of pockets configured to receive semiconductor packages, the cover tape configured to cover the pockets, the apparatus comprising: an image obtainer configured to obtain a three-dimensional (3D) image of the adhesion portions (abstract, Cheng); but remains silent as to processing circuitry configured to calculate volumes of the adhesion portions from the 3D image of the adhesion portions, and convert the volumes of the adhesion portions into the peel strengths.
Inoue et al. (hereinafter Inoue) teaches an adhesive layer for a carrier tape and cover tape where the thickness is preferably about 0.2 to 60 micrometers [0035] in order to provide sufficient strength [0005].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Cheng to include measurement of the thickness, as Inoue teaches that this is important for adhesion strength, in addition to the adhesive tape area. With these measured values, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to relate the volume to the adhesion strength.
Regarding claim 14, Cheng as modified by Inoue teaches the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the image obtainer comprises a camera configured to photograph the adhesion portions (linear laser generator (Cheng, Abstract)).
Regarding claim 15, Cheng as modified by Inoue teaches the apparatus of claim 14, wherein the image obtainer further comprises illuminator configured to illuminate the adhesion portions using a line laser (Cheng, Abstract).
Claim(s) 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (CN107883879) as modified by Inoue et al. (JP4544563) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamamoto et al. (JP4784003).
Regarding claims 4, 9 and 10, Cheng as modified by Inoue teaches the method of claim 1, but remains silent as to wherein the adhesion portions comprise a pair of the adhesion portions extended from both sides of each of the pockets along a first horizontal direction.
Yamamoto et al. (hereinafter Yamamoto) teaches adhesion portions on both sides of the pockets along a first horizontal direction (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a pair of adhesion portions in order to securely attach the carrier tape to the packaging, as taught by Yamamoto [0003].
Regarding claims 5 and 11, Cheng as modified by Inoue further in view of Yamamoto teaches the method of claim 4 (and 10), wherein the determining the volumes of the adhesion portions comprises measuring a first horizontal length of each of the adhesion portions along the first horizontal direction, a second horizontal length of each of the adhesion portions along a second horizontal direction substantially perpendicular to the first horizontal direction, and a vertical length of each of the adhesion portions along a vertical direction (the adhesive area and thickness as rejected for claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 16, Cheng as modified by Inoue teaches the apparatus of claim 13, but remains silent as to wherein the adhesion portions comprise a pair of the adhesion portions extended from both sides of each of the pockets along a first horizontal direction.
Yamamoto et al. (hereinafter Yamamoto) teaches adhesion portions on both sides of the pockets along a first horizontal direction (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a pair of adhesion portions in order to securely attach the carrier tape to the packaging, as taught by Yamamoto [0003].
Regarding claim 17, Cheng as modified by Inoue further in view of Yamamoto teaches the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to measure a first horizontal length of each of the adhesion portions along the first horizontal direction, a second horizontal length of each of the adhesion portions along a second horizontal direction substantially perpendicular to the first horizontal direction and a vertical length of each of the adhesion portions along a vertical direction (the adhesive area and thickness as rejected for claim 1 above).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW V DO whose telephone number is (571)270-3420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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, Walter L Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/A.V.D/Examiner, Art Unit 2852 /WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights