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 . 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 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/30/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: cutting device, inspection device, and storage device of claim 1, vision unit of claim 2, cleaning unit of claim 7, strip picker of claim 8.
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 § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Terada (US 2019/0358757).
Regarding claim 1, Terada teaches a semiconductor package cutting system comprising:
a cutting device (20) for partial-cutting at least a portion of a strip comprising a plurality of semiconductor packages (Figures 1 and 4, Paragraphs 0048-0050;
an inspection device (65) mounted behind the cutting device to supply a first strip to be cut to the cutting device and to receive and inspect a second strip cut by the cutting device (Paragraph 0145); and
a storage device (61) mounted behind the inspection device to supply the first strip stored therein, to the inspection device and to receive and store the second strip inspected by the inspection device, wherein the inspection device comprises an inspection table (100) for placing the first or second strip thereon and moving the first strip along a first direction (Figures 1 and 34; Paragraphs 0088-0091, 0145).
Regarding claim 6, Terada teaches the semiconductor package cutting system of claim 1, wherein the inspection table comprises: a first inspection table (100) for placing the first strip thereon when the first strip is supplied, and being movable back and forth in the first direction; and a second inspection table (100-2) for placing the second strip thereon when the second strip is received (Figure 34 and Paragraph 0133-0135).
Regarding claim 7, Terada teaches the semiconductor package cutting system of claim 1, wherein the cutting device comprises: a chuck table (10) for fixing the first or second strip (Figures 1 and 3; Paragraphs 0048-0052);
a cutting unit comprising a replaceable blade (21) to partial-cut at least a portion of the first strip fixed to the chuck table (Figures 1, 10 and 11; Paragraph 0089); and
a cleaning unit (70) for cleaning a surface or another surface of the cut second strip (Figures 1, Paragraph 0065, 0067-0068).
Regarding claim 8, Terada teaches the semiconductor package cutting system of claim 7, wherein the cutting device further comprises a strip picker (80) for moving the strip positioned on one of the chuck table, the cutting unit, the cleaning unit, and the inspection table to another (Figure 8; Paragraph 0068-0071).
Regarding claim 9, Terada teaches the semiconductor package cutting system of claim 2, wherein the storage device stores the first or second strip in a direction corresponding to a direction in which the rails extend (Figure 5).
Regarding claim 10, Terada teaches a semiconductor package cutting method comprising:
(a) moving a strip supplied from a storage device (61) and placed on rails (812) of an inspection device (65), to a cutting device (20) by moving an inspection table (100) of the inspection device (Figures 1, 5 and 6; Paragraphs 0048-0050);
(b) partial-cutting at least a portion of the strip by using the cutting device (Figure 6; Paragraph 0046 noting cutting lines 202);
(c) moving the cut strip to the inspection device and inspecting a cut depth (Figures 5 and 6); and
(d) moving and storing the inspected strip to and in the storage device (Figures 5 and 6; Paragraphs 0092-0096, 0145).
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.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terada (US 2019/0358757) in view of Takekawa (US 2016/0346956).
Regarding claim 2, Terada teaches the semiconductor package cutting system of claim 1, wherein the inspection device further comprises:
Terada does not provide the inspection device including a vision unit mounted on a path of the inspection table to inspect a cut depth of the second strip.
Takekawa teaches it is known in the art of semiconductor cutting systems to provide a vision unit (20) mounted on a path of an inspection table to inspect a cut depth of a workpiece (Figure 1; Paragraphs 0036, 0046).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Terada to incorporate the teachings of Takekawa to provide a vision system. In doing so, it allows for detection of the workpiece during the cutting process.
Regarding claim 3, the modified device of Terada teaches the semiconductor package cutting system of claim 2, wherein the storage device is mounted on a rear portion of the inspection device, and wherein the rails extend in the first direction toward the storage device (Terada Figure 6; Paragraph 0069-0070).
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Terada teaches the semiconductor package cutting system of claim 2, wherein the storage device is mounted on a side portion of the inspection device, and wherein the rails extend in a second direction toward the storage device (Terada Figures 1, 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Terada teaches the semiconductor package cutting system of claim 4, wherein the inspection table is rotatable about a third direction to rotate the first or second strip placed thereon (Terada Figures 1, 5 and 6; Noting the table element may be transferred vertically into and out of the cassette 61).
Related Prior Art
Below is an analysis of the relevance of references cited but not used
- "892 cited references A-M on page 1 establish the state of the art with a variety of cutting systems for semiconductors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD D CROSBY JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/RICHARD D CROSBY JR/ 03/27/2026Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 03/27/2026