Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/707,161

RESIN SEALING DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
May 02, 2024
Examiner
MACHNESS, ARIELLA
Art Unit
1743
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Apic Yamada Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
70%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allow Rate
92 granted / 154 resolved
-5.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
197
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
50.4%
+10.4% vs TC avg
§102
21.4%
-18.6% vs TC avg
§112
22.1%
-17.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 154 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . 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. Claim 7 is 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. Claim 7 recites the limitation “two press devices” in line 2. However, claim 1, which claim 7 depends from, only recites for a single press device in line 2 and it is unclear how two press devices can further limit one press device. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret “a press device” of claim 1 to be “at least one press device” such that two press devices clearly further limits the limitation of at least one press device. However, clarification and correction is 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. Claim(s) 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. (JP2019145550- Machine translation provided herein). Regarding claim 1, Suzuki teaches a resin sealing device (resin mold apparatus 1; Figure 1), in which a workpiece is sealed with resin and processed into a molded product ([0001] a resin molding apparatus and a resin molding method for resin-molding a workpiece having electronic components mounted on a substrate) using at least one press device (press unit 100B; Figure 1) comprising a sealing mold that comprises an upper die and a tower die (upper mold 204 and lower mold 206 shown in Figure 6), wherein the resin sealing device comprises a loader (first supply pickup 120, storage pickup 122, and first loader 210; Figure 1) that reciprocates in a left-right direction along a guide and conveys the workpiece and the molded product ([0054 a left-right inlet path along which the supply pickup 120 transports the workpiece W to the first holding section 210A and a left-right outlet path along which the storage pickup (first storage pickup 122) transports the molded product Wp from the second holding section 210B are arranged side by side in the front-to-back direction. This prevents the workpiece W being brought in by the supply pickup 120 and the molded product Wp being taken out by the storage pickup (first storage pickup 122) from intersecting or overlapping); the loader comprises: an in-loader section, configured to be movable in a front-rear direction and carrying the workpiece into the sealing mold ([0028] These loaders 210 and 212 not only carry the workpiece W into the molding die 202 but also carry out the molded product Wp from the molding die 202, and therefore also function as off-loaders and [0049] As an example, the first loader 210 has a first holding section 210A on the front side having two rows of work holding sections 210a, 210b on the left and right); and an out-loader section, configured to be movable in the front-rear direction and carrying the molded product out of the sealing mold ([0028] These loaders 210 and 212 not only carry the workpiece W into the molding die 202 but also carry out the molded product Wp from the molding die 202, and therefore also function as off-loaders and [0049] a second holding section 210B on the rear side having two rows of molded product holding sections 210c, 210d on the left and right); and the in-loader section and the out-loader section are arranged in parallel along the left-right direction (see annotated Figure 1 below). PNG media_image1.png 508 792 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, Suzuki teaches the resin sealing device according to claim 1, wherein the in-loader section comprises, on a lower surface, a workpiece holder that holds the workpiece ([0044] The first holding portion 210A has a known holding mechanism (e.g., a clamping configuration with holding claws, a suction hole connected to a suction device for adsorption, etc.) as a work holding portion that holds the placed workpiece W (in the figure, symbols 210a and 210b); lower surface of placed workpiece W shown on 210A in Figure 2 is held in first holding portion 210A by clamping configuration with holding claws, a suction hole connected to a suction device for adsorption, etc.); and the out-loader section comprises, on a lower surface, a molded product holder that holds the molded product ([0047] The second holding portion 210B has a known holding mechanism (for example, a clamping configuration with holding claws, a suction hole connected to a suction device for adsorption, etc.) as a molded product holding portion that holds the placed molded product Wp (in the figure, symbols 210c and 210d); lower surface of placed molded product Wp shown on 210B in Figure 2 is held in first holding portion 210B by clamping configuration with holding claws, a suction hole connected to a suction device for adsorption, etc.). Claim(s) 1, 2, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102)(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi (US6050802). Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi teaches a resin sealing device (resin molding machine 1; Figure 1), in which a workpiece is sealed with resin (col 1 line 10-14) and processed into a molded product using at least one press device (Abstract: Workpieces are conveyed from a work supplying section to the press units; press units 3 in Figure 1) comprising a sealing mold that comprises an upper die (upper dies 27; Figure 6A) and a lower die (lower dies 38; Figure 6A), wherein the resin sealing device comprises a loader (loader unit 7; Figure 1) that reciprocates in a left-right direction (along conveying route 10 shown in Figure 1) along a guide (rail 20; Figure 3A) and conveys the workpiece and the molded product (col 9 line 42-53); the loader comprises: an in-loader section (loader 8; Figure 3B), configured to be movable in a front-rear direction and carrying the workpiece into the sealing mold (col 10 line 50-54); and an out-loader section (unloader 9; Figure 3B), configured to be movable in the front-rear direction and carrying the molded product out of the sealing mold (col 9 line 42-53 and col 10 line 54-58); and the in-loader section and the out-loader section are arranged in parallel along the left-right direction (col 9 line 57-59; see the sections arranged in parallel along the left-right direction as the sections move from position A to position B and position C in Figure 1). Regarding claim 2, Kobayashi teaches the resin sealing device according to claim 1, wherein the in-loader section comprises, on a lower surface, a workpiece holder (moving body 23; Figure 3B) that holds the workpiece (col 10 line 51-54); and the out-loader section comprises, on a lower surface, a molded product holder (moving body 24; Figure 3B) that holds the molded product (col 10 line 55-58). Regarding claim 7, Kobayashi teaches the resin sealing device according to claim 1, wherein there are arranged two press devices (see first press unit 3a and the second press unit 3b in Figure 1); there is arranged one loader (see loader unit 7 in Figure 1); the resin sealing device comprises a control part that controls operation of the press device and the loader (col 9 line 36-38); and the control part performs control such that a resin sealing process in each of the two press devices is performed in a temporally staggered manner, and carry-in of the workpiece and carry- out of the molded product with respect to the two press devices are performed using the one loader (col 9 line 44-53 and col 13 line 31-33). 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. 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. Claim(s) 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (JP2019145550- Machine translation provided herein). Regarding claim 3, Suzuki teaches the resin sealing device according to claim 2, further comprising: a workpiece heater (workpiece heater 116; Figure 2), preheating the workpiece, wherein the workpiece heater is arranged in a predetermined position along the guide and below the loader ([0040] the workpiece processing unit 100A is equipped with a workpiece heater 116 that heats the workpiece W from the underside; see workpiece heater 116 below supply pickup 120, first storage pickup 122, and first loader 210 in Figure 2). While the above configuration of Suzuki does not teach the workpiece held by the workpiece holder of the in-loader section is exposed toward the workpiece heater, Suzuki does teach a modified embodiment where a heater is provided on the in-loader section such that the workpiece held by the workpiece holder of the in-loader section is exposed toward the workpiece heater ([0040] As a modified example, a configuration without the work heater 116 is also possible. In this case, a heater can be provided in the first holding section 210A (first loader 210)). Preheating the workpiece before being carried into the press device suppresses elongation of the workpiece within the press device ([0040] This allows the workpiece W to be preheated before being carried into the mold die 202 and heated, thereby suppressing elongation of the workpiece W within the mold die 202). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the workpiece heater be arranged in a predetermined position along the guide and below the loader, as taught by one embodiment of Suzuki, such that workpiece held by the workpiece holder of the in-loader section is exposed toward the workpiece heater, as taught in a separate embodiment of Suzuki, to achieve the predictable result of preheating the workpiece. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success for the heater to be placed under the in-loader section, since Suzuki teaches the workpiece heater can heat the workpiece from the underside and that the heater can be movable between a position outside the outer periphery of the work W and a position directly below the bottom surface of the workpiece W ([0041]) such that the workpiece heater would not interfere with the in-loader section before or during movement into the press unit. Regarding claim 4, modified Suzuki teaches the resin seating device according to claim 3, wherein the loader comprises: a first lifting mechanism, lifting and lowering the in-loader section ([0046] The first loader 210, which holds the workpiece W at the first holding portion 210A, is configured to be movable in the… up-down directions). While Suzuki fails to teach a pressing mechanism, pressing the workpiece held by the workpiece holder of the in-loader section against the workpiece heater, a separate embodiment of Suzuki teaches the heater is movable toward and away from the underside of the held workpiece ([0041] The workpiece heater 116 according to this embodiment is disposed above the supply rail 104 so as to be movable toward and away from the underside of the workpiece W held by the supply pickup 120 (see FIG. 2)) such that the heater can be positioned directly below the bottom surface of the workpiece ([0041] In other words, the work heater 116 is disposed so as to be movable between a position outside the outer periphery of the work W and a position directly below the bottom surface of the work W). Positioning the heater directly below the workpiece and bringing the held workpiece closer to the heater results in more efficient heating ([0041] Furthermore, when the work heater 116 is moved to a position directly below the underside of the work W, more efficient heating can be achieved by moving the supply pickup 120, which is holding the work W, downward to bring the work W closer to the work heater 116). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the resin sealing device of modified Suzuki comprise a pressing mechanism, pressing the workpiece held by the workpiece holder of the in-loader section against the workpiece heater, as taught in a separate embodiment of Suzuki, for the benefit of increasing the heating efficiency of the workpiece held at the in-loader section. Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (JP2019145550- Machine translation provided herein), and further in view of Sekiguchi (JP2005047180A- Machine translation provided herein). Regarding claim 5, modified Suzuki teaches the resin seating device according to claim 4. While Suzuki teaches the heater moves between a position outside the periphery of the workpiece and a position directly below the bottom surface of the workpiece ([0041]), Suzuki fails to teach wherein the pressing mechanism is configured so that a pressure that presses the workpiece against the workpiece heater is variable stepwise during pressing. In the same field of endeavor pertaining to a press device, Sekiguchi teaches a workpiece is heated while being pressurized stepwise ([0012] Furthermore, since the laminate is heated while being pressurized stepwise with the first molding pressure and the second molding pressure). Pressurizing a workpiece stepwise as it is heated avoids damage to the workpiece ([0012] Furthermore, since the laminate is heated while being pressurized stepwise with the first molding pressure and the second molding pressure, no load or damage is applied to the honeycomb core). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the pressing mechanism of modified Suzuki be configured so that a pressure that presses the workpiece against the workpiece heater is variable stepwise during pressing, as taught by Sekiguchi, to avoid damage to the workpiece as it is preheated. Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (JP2019145550- Machine translation provided herein) and Sekiguchi (JP2005047180A- Machine translation provided herein), and further in view of Song et al. (US20030020509). Regarding claim 6, modified Suzuki modified with Sekiguchi teaches the resin sealing device according to claim 5. While Suzuki teaches the vertical movement of platens is achieved through a drive source such as an electric motor ([0073]) and that the in-loader and off-loader sections can be separate bodies and be movable in the same manner such that a first and second lifting mechanism would be required to lift the in-loader and off-loader sections ([0050]), Suzuki fails to teach one motor drives both the first lifting mechanism and the second lifting mechanism. However, Suzuki does teach the in-loader and off-loader section are movable in the same manner ([0050] In this case, it may be configured to be movable in the same manner as the first holding portion 210A) and that moving the in-loader and off-loader section as a single unit simplifies and miniaturizes the device configuration while allowing for shortened processing times by simultaneously transporting the workpieces and molded products ([0049] Therefore, the first holding section 210A and the second holding section 210B are configured to be movable as a single unit as the first loader 210 in the front-rear, left right and up-down directions. This not only simplifies and miniaturizes the device configuration, but also allows for a configuration in which two workpieces W and two molded products Wp can be transported at the same time, thereby shortening the process time). Further, in the same field of endeavor pertaining to devices that seal electronic components with resin, Song teaches a single drive apparatus to perform two operations ([0010]). The single drive apparatus reduces costs by eliminating separate drive mechanisms for two operations ([0010]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the first and second lifting mechanism of modified Suzuki modified with Sekiguchi be driven by one motor, as suggested by Suzuki and as taught by Song, for the benefit of reducing costs by simplifying and miniaturizing the device configuration when eliminating separate drive mechanisms. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIELLA MACHNESS whose telephone number is (408)918-7587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:30-2:30 PT. 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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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. /ARIELLA MACHNESS/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 02, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Feb 25, 2026
Interview Requested
Mar 03, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 03, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 02, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600084
Additive Manufacturing System
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600088
PRINTHEAD FOR A 3D PRINTER AND METHOD FOR OPERATING A PRINTHEAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594724
MODULE FOR SUPPLYING ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING POWDER ALLOWING DRYING OF THE POWDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594601
MODULE FOR SUPPLYING ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING POWDER ALLOWING THE TRANSFER OF POWDER INTO A CONTAINER UNDER AN INERT ATMOSPHERE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594713
THREE-DIMENSIONAL FREEZE EXTRUSION FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF HOMOGENEOUS AND GRADED RODS AND TUBES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
60%
Grant Probability
70%
With Interview (+10.0%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 154 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month