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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/21/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The substitute specification filed 11/21/2024 is acknowledged and has been approved for entry 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 limitations are:
“a mold clamp mechanism” in claim 1. The corresponding structure for the mold clamp is recited as a ball screw (see [0019]).
“a moving mechanism” in claim 8. The corresponding structure for the moving mechanism is recited as a pair of rails and drive section (see [0052]).
“a measuring section” in claim 9. The corresponding structure for the measuring section is recited as a weighting mechanism to include rods, and a scale (see [0055] – [0058]).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 limitations 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 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitations is/are:
“a resin supply mechanism” in claim 1. The corresponding structure for the resin supply mechanism is recited within claim 1 as a rotor, supply section and spatula-shaped member.
“the mold die” in claim 1. The corresponding structure for the mold die is recited within claim 1 as an upper die and lower die.
Because these claim limitations are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. (JP 2018183931 A1), in view of at least one of Goto et al. (JP 2017193095 A – of record, hereinafter ‘095), or Lee et al. (US 2013/0334247 A1), in view of Guo (CN 114434798 A).
Regarding claim 1, Goto discloses a resin molding apparatus. The apparatus to include a dispenser 18 and moving mechanism 19 – (construed as a resin supply mechanism) suitable for supplying a powdery resin material onto a film disposed on a lower mold, see [0020] – (construed as configured to supply powder resin onto at least one object to be supplied). A mold die 11 including: an upper die 9; and a lower die 10 facing the upper die, the mold die being configured to receive the powder resin between the upper die and the lower die, see figure 2 (b); and a mold clamp mechanism 6 configured to clamp the mold die for compression molding. The resin supply mechanism including: a dispenser 18, see figure 2 (b) – (construed as a resin supply section configured to store the powder resin and having an opening for letting the powder resin drop freely).
Goto does not explicitly disclose the use of a rotor in a shape of a circular column with an outer surface having a plurality of depressions, the rotor being configured to rotate about an axis; or a spatula-shaped member having a first end in contact with the outer surface of the rotor.
‘095 discloses a resin molding apparatus. The apparatus to include a resin removing mechanism 35 comprising a rotating body 36 – (construed as a rotor in a shape of a circular column, the rotor being configured to rotate about an axis) and spatula member 39 disposed as to touch the rotating body, see FIG. 5 (c) - FIG. 6 (b) – (construed as a spatula-shaped member having a first end in contact with the outer surface of the rotor). ‘095 discloses such a configuration prevents the residual resin taken up by the rotating body from continuing to rotate while attached to the rotating body.
Lee discloses a precision measurement dispenser for storage of granular bulk material in a storage container. The dispenser is configured to have a shaft 100 that is a circular column and rotates on an axis, see FIG. 10 – (construed as a circular column, the rotor being configured to rotate about an axis). And a metering wall 110 having an end that is in contact with the shaft, see FIG. 10 – (construed as a spatula-shaped member having a first end in contact with the outer surface of the rotor). Lee discloses such a configuration allows for regulating the flow of material, see [0063].
Guo discloses a powder laying system. The system is configured to use a circular column shaped powder distribution roller 104 – (construed as a rotor) having disposed thereon grooves – (construed as a depressions), see figure 5 – (construed as a rotor in a shape of a circular column with an outer surface having a plurality of depressions, the rotor being configured to rotate about an axis). Guo discloses such a configuration allows for powder delivery and reduction of instance of powder jamming, see page 23 paragraphs 1 and 5.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Goto’s resin supply mechanism to have a rotor and spatula as taught by ‘095 or Lee and for the rotor to include depressions as taught by Guo to provide the resin supply mechanism with a means for metering the powder with a reduced chance of powder jamming as reasonably suggested by the prior art.
Regarding claims 2-3, modified Goto does not explicitly disclose the claimed resin supply section shape. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Goto’s resin supply section as claimed since: it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. Further, one would have been motivated to select the offset shape of resin supply section for the purpose of channeling the powder to the opening of the container, see MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 4, modified Goto discloses the at least one object to be supplied includes: a release film 27; and a frame 16, see ‘095.
Regarding claim 5, modified Goto does not explicitly disclose the claimed spatula shaped member slit. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Goto’s spatula shaped member as claimed since: it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. Further, one would have been motivated to form the spatula shaped member to have a slit for the purpose of increasing the flexibility of the member suitable for maintain contact with the rotor as it turns, see MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claims 6-7, modified Goto does not explicitly disclose the claimed movable plate. However,
Regarding claim 8, modified Goto discloses a moving mechanism 19 configured to move the resin supply mechanism, see Goto.
Regarding claim 10, modified Goto discloses a method for producing a resin molded product with use of a resin molding apparatus, see Goto [0002]. This includes a supplying step of supplying an object to be formed by a supply mechanism, see [0008], the object being a semiconductor chip disposed on a substrate and sealed with the resin, see [0011] – (construed as an object), and the resin being a powder, see [0020] - (construed as supplying the powder resin onto the at least one object to be supplied with use of the resin supply mechanism); and a supplying step of supplying a pre-forming substrate, which is an object of resin molding, to the mold surface of the mold or the lower mold by the supply mechanism, see [0065] – (construed as supplying a substrate to be molded and the at least one object to be supplied onto the mold die); and a resin molding step mold by clamping a resin mold, see [0065] – (construed as clamping the mold die with use of the mold clamp mechanism for the compression molding).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. (JP 2018183931 A1), in view of at least one of Goto et al. (JP 2017193095 A – of record, hereinafter ‘095), or Lee et al. (US 2013/0334247 A1), in view of Guo (CN 114434798 A), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Muramatsu (WO2018109967A1 – of record).
Regarding claim 9, modified Goto does not explicitly disclose the claimed measuring section arrangement.
Muramatsu discloses a resin supply jig and its measuring method. The arrangement is configured to have a stage 17 – (construed as a table) that the resin supply jig – (construed as an object to be supplied); and an electronic balance as a weighing device 21 – (construed as a measuring section) disposed directly below the resin supply jig and configured to weigh the resin on the resin supply jig, see at least FIGS 3H – 4N and corresponding written description).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Goto to have a table and measuring arrangement as taught by Muramatsu to provide a means for accurately measuring the weight of resin as reasonably suggested by the prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 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, claim 6 and claim 7 and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record Goto does not teach or reasonably suggest forming the resin supply mechanism to have a plate parallel to the axis and facing a side of the rotor relative to the axis on which side the outer surface moves downward as the rotor rotates; wherein the plate is movable upward and downward.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached on 5712705545. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749