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 .
Response to Amendment
In view of the amendment filed 04/02/2026:
Claims 1-7 are pending.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura et al. (WO2020137386 A1- Machine translation provided herein).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura teaches a resin sealing device (Figure 14), in which a workpiece (see pre-molding work W1 and the post-molding work W2 in Figure 14) is sealed with resin and processed into a molded product (Abstract: the unmolded resin (R1) is pressure-fed to a cavity by a transfer molding device (13) and transfer molded, the unmolded resin (R1) supplied into the lower mold cavity is caused to overflow by a compression molding device (18), and any device used in the case of compression molding can be selected and used) using at least one press device (see molding dies 14 in Figure 14) comprising a sealing mold that comprises an upper die and a lower die (see upper mold 15 and lower mold 16 in Figure 10A and Figure 10B),
wherein the resin sealing device comprises a loader (see annotated Figure 14 below) that reciprocates in a left-right direction along a guide (linear guide rails 19; Figure 14) and conveys the workpiece and the molded product (“The loader D1 carries in the pre-molding work W1 and the pre-molding resin R1 into the molding die 14 provided in the press section C, and the unloader D2 carries out the post-molding work W2 and the unnecessary resin R2 from the molding die 14”- see pg.);
the loader comprises:
an in-loader section (loader D1; Figure 14), configured to be movable in a front-rear direction and carrying the workpiece into the sealing mold (“The transfer hand section D holds the pre-molding work W1 and the pre-molding resin R1 and carries them into the press section C”- see pg.); and
an out-loader section (unloader D2; Figure 14), configured to be movable in the front-rear direction and carrying the molded product out of the sealing mold (“The loader D1 carries in the pre-molding work W1 and the pre-molding resin R1 into the molding die 14 provided in the press section C, and the unloader D2 carries out the post-molding work W2”- see pg.); and the in-loader section and the out-loader section are arranged in parallel along a traverse axis defining the left-right direction (see annotated Figure 14 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
430
750
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Nakamura 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; and the out-loader section comprises, on a lower surface, a molded product holder that holds the molded product (“the robot hand E1 is capable of holding the vicinity of the outer periphery of the work W while avoiding the center of the work W by dividing the tip into a forked shape. As shown in the figure, the robot hand E1 is provided with suction holes 22a capable of sucking the outer periphery of the work W and suction paths 22b communicating with the suction holes 22a at three positions on the tip side and the root side. The robot hand 1 is adapted to place a work W and to suck and hold the back surface thereof”- see pg. and Figure 19B).
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura teaches the resin sealing device according to claim 1, wherein there are arranged two press devices (see molding dies 14 in annotated Figure 14 above);
there is arranged one loader (see annotated Figure 14 above);
the resin sealing device comprises a control part that controls operation of the press devices and the loader (“Further, a control unit H that controls the operation of these processing units is arranged”- see pg.); 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 (where two molding dies 14 are available then the control part would be capable of performing a resin sealing process in each of the two press devices in a temporally staggered manner and the loader D1 is used to load the workpiece into each molding die 14 while the unloader D2 is used to unload the molded workpiece from each molding die 14).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (WO2020137386 A1- Machine translation provided herein), and further in view of Sato et al. (WO2014185202A1- Machine translation provided herein).
Regarding claim 3, Nakamura teaches the resin sealing device according to claim 2. However, Nakamura fails to teach the resin sealing device further comprising: a workpiece heater, preheating the workpiece, wherein the workpiece heater is arranged in a predetermined position along the guide and below the loader; and the loader is configured so that the workpiece held by the workpiece holder of the in-loader section is exposed toward the workpiece heater.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to resin sealing devices, Sato teaches a resin sealing device further comprising:
a workpiece heater (preheating unit 160; Figure 1), preheating the workpiece (“In the preheating unit 160 shown in FIG. 1, the workpiece W before forming is preheated”- see pg.),
wherein the workpiece heater is arranged in a predetermined position along the guide and below the loader (“The workpiece W whose thickness has been measured is conveyed to the preheating unit 160 by the loader 210”- see pg. and see preheating unit 160 positioned along conveyance path 200 in Figure 1); and
the loader is configured so that the workpiece held by the workpiece holder of the in-loader section is exposed toward the workpiece heater (The workpiece held by loader 210 is conveyed towards preheating unit 160 to heat the workpiece; see Figure 1). Preheating the workpiece can shorten the heating times required in the sealing mold and improve production efficiency (“by being preheated by the preheating unit 160, the heating time in the press unit 110 can be shortened and the production efficiency can be improved”- see pg.).
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 Nakamura further comprise a workpiece heater that preheats the workpiece, wherein the workpiece heater is arranged in a predetermined position along the guide and below the loader; and the loader is configured so that the workpiece held by the workpiece holder of the in-loader section is exposed toward the workpiece heater, as taught by Sato, for the benefit of reducing heating times required in the sealing mold and improving production efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art is Nakamura et al. (WO2020137386 A1- Machine translation provided herein), Sato et al. (WO2014185202A1- Machine translation provided herein), and Suzuki et al. (JP2019145550A- Machine translation provided herein).
Regarding claim 4, Nakamura modified with Sato teaches the resin sealing device according to claim 3.
Further, Nakamura teaches wherein the loader comprises: a first lifting mechanism, lifting and lowering the in-loader section (“The articulated robot E is composed of, for example, a vertical articulated robot that can move up and down by a foldable vertical link E3 and a horizontal articulated robot that can rotate and move the horizontal link E2 in a horizontal plane”- see pg.).
However, Nakamura fails to teach a pressing mechanism, pressing the workpiece held by the workpiece holder of the in-loader section against the workpiece heater.
Sato teaches a workpiece heater (preheating unit 160; Figure 1), preheating the workpiece (“In the preheating unit 160 shown in FIG. 1, the workpiece W before forming is preheated”- see pg.), but fails to teach a pressing mechanism, pressing the workpiece held by the workpiece holder of the in-loader section against the workpiece heater.
Further, Suzuki teaches 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) and a heater that 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). However, Suzuki fails to teach the workpiece held by the workpiece holder of the in-loader section is pressed against the workpiece heater.
Claim 5 and claim 6 depend from claim 4 and are, therefore, allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights