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 10/02/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/11/2026.
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: loading device, cutting device, inspection device and unloading device of claim 1, vision unit of claim 2, cleaning unit of claim 7.
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 § 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 5 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.
-Regarding claim 5, the phrase “wherein the inspection table is rotatable about a third direction to rotate the strip placed thereon” is unclear. What structure of the inspection table allows for the function of “rotation”? Examiner notes that while there appears to be support in the specification (011, 0040) it is unclear how this function is performed. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as capable of rotation by any means, such as a user or outside device.
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 6-9 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 loading device (60,61) storing at least one strip or at least one magazine containing the strip (Figures 1 and 5);
a cutting device (20) mounted behind the loading device to partial-cut at least a portion of the strip supplied from the loading device (Figures 1 and 4; Paragraphs 0048-0050);
an inspection device (65) mounted behind the cutting device to inspect the strip cut by the cutting device (Paragraph 0145); and
an unloading device (400) mounted behind the inspection device to unload the inspected strip (Paragraph 0137-0138).
Regarding claim 6, Terada teaches the semiconductor package cutting system of claim 2, wherein the loading device comprises a loading pusher (80) for moving the strip in a second direction to supply the strip to the cutting device (Figure 25; Paragraph 0068).
Regarding claim 7, Terada teaches the semiconductor package cutting system of claim 1, wherein the cutting device comprises: inlet rails extending in a second direction to place thereon the strip supplied from the loading device (Paragraph 0063 noting rails); a chuck table (10) for receiving and fixing the strip aligned on the inlet rails, and being rotatable to rotate the strip (Figure 1); a cutting unit comprising a replaceable blade (21) to partial-cut at least a portion of the strip fixed to the chuck table (Figures 1, 1 and 12; Paragraph 0047-0048, 0083); and a cleaning unit (70) for cleaning a surface or another surface of the cut strip (Figure 1 and Paragraphs 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 inlet rails, the chuck table, the cutting unit, and the cleaning unit to another or to an inspection table of the inspection device so as to perform a plurality of processes on the strip (Paragraphs 0095-0096).
Regarding claim 9, Terada teaches the semiconductor package cutting system of claim 8, wherein the strip picker comprises: a first strip picker (82) for moving the strip placed on the inlet rails to the chuck table and a second strip picker (82) for moving the strip cut on the chuck table to the cleaning unit and moving the strip cleaned by the cleaning unit to the inspection table (Paragraph 0068-0071; Figure 7 showing one of the pickers).
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, and wherein the inspection device comprises an inspection table (100) for placing thereon the strip cut by the cutting device, and being movable back and forth in a first direction (Figure 34; Paragraph 0137); and outlet rails (63) for placing thereon the strip transferred from the inspection table (Figure 34).
Terada does not provide a vision unit mounted on a path of the inspection table to inspect a cut depth of the strip.
Takekawa teaches it is known in the art of cutting systems to provide a vision unit (20) mounted on a path of an inspection table to inspect a cutting depth of a workpiece (Figure 1 and 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 unloading device is mounted on a rear portion of the inspection device, and wherein the outlet rails comprise first outlet rails extending in the first direction toward the unloading device to place thereon the strip supplied from the inspection table (Terada Figures 31 and 34; Examiner notes there to be a plurality of rails that extend in the first direction towards the unloading device 400).
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Terada teaches the semiconductor package cutting system of claim 2, wherein the unloading device is mounted on a side portion of the inspection device, and wherein the outlet rails comprise second outlet rails extending in a second direction toward the unloading device to place thereon the strip transferred from the inspection table (Figures 31 and 34; Note the unloading device is capable of being a plurality of different devices, and allows for removal of the workpiece in a variety of ways. Figures 31 and 34; Paragraph 0138).
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 strip placed thereon (Figure 34; Examiner notes the table is capable of rotation via a user).
Related Prior Art
Below is an analysis of the relevance of references cited but not used
- "892 cited references C-K on page 1 establish the state of the art with a variety of cutting devices and workpiece transfer systems.
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/ 06/24/2026Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights