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 § 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.
Claims 1-2, 12-13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamamuro, U.S. Patent No. 10040205 B2.
Regarding claims 1, 13, 18, Yamamuro ‘205 discloses a nozzle 66 for a pick and place machine 10, the nozzle 66 comprising: a planar contact surface 124 configured to form a fluid tight seal with an electronic component 150, a spring biased (115, 132, claim 17), a nozzle body (82, 84) comprising a suction chamber (90, 96), a nozzle tip (i.e., end of 100 with 126 providing a bending stress, claims 16 and 19) comprising a proximal end (i.e., an end portion from top) that is attached to the nozzle body, and an opposing distal end (i.e., an end portion from the bottom forms a perimeter portion, claim 2) that forms a portion of the contact surface, and a nozzle chamber (116, which forms at least two nozzle chamber openings 118, 120 on each side, claim 12) that extend from the opposing distal end to the suction chamber, and a support structure (122 forms an internal portion) that extends into the nozzle chamber from the opposing distal end, the support structure forming a portion of the contact surface, figures 1-5.
PNG
media_image1.png
588
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamuro, U.S. Patent No. 10040205 B2.
As stated above, Yamamuro ‘205 shows wherein the support structure 122 comprises at least two nozzle chamber openings (118, 120 on each side 116) rather than four nozzle chamber openings.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the openings to enhance the suction power, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 9-11, 14-15, and 20 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The claims 3-7, 9-11, 14-15, and 20 are patentable over the prior art of record because the teachings of the references taken as a whole do not show or render obvious the combination set forth in claims 3-7, 9-11, 14-15, and 20, including every structural element recited in the dependent claims.
None of the references of the prior art teach or suggest the elements of the device as advanced above and such do not provide the necessary motivation, absent applicant's specification, for modifying the device in the manner required by the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG K KIM whose telephone number is 571-272-6947. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday through Thursday from 10:30 A.M. to 9 P.M or Tuesday through Thursday from 10:30 A.M. to 7 P.M.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Robert Hodge, can be reached on (571) 272-2097. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
SK
8/5/26
/SANG K KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights