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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on October 10, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 12-15 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 10, 2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
distance D as described in line 17 of page 9.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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: “conveying mechanism” in claims 1-3, 8 and “drive component” in claims 1-3, 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. Note the structure of the conveying mechanism is described on page 8, lines 28-31. Additionally the structure of the drive component is described on page 6, line 23 and page 9, lines 7-9.
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.
Claims 1-11 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the carried board" in line 8 There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because only “a first board” and “a second board” have been previously recited. Furthermore, this language is unclear in scope and meaning because it is not clear which, if any, of the previously recited boards applicant is intending to refer to.
With respect to claim 3, the phrase “the conveying mechanism is capable of conveying the first board and the second board in a first direction” is somewhat confusing since claim 1 only previously recited that the conveying mechanism was used to carry the first board
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the carried boards" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, the term “the upper surfaces” in line 4 also does not have proper antecedent basis since no upper surfaces of the board(s) were previously recited. Additionally the phrase “of the board” in line 4 is also unclear in scope and meaning since multiple boards were previously recited and it is unclear which board is being referred to.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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.
(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 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mantani et al. (US 2019/0118525 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Mantani et al. teaches a printing system 1 for printing a first board 10 and a second board 10 (see Figs. 1 and 3), the printing system comprising:
a conveying mechanism 6b, the conveying mechanism 6b being used to carry the first board 10;
a vacuum device 5a, 5b, 5c, the vacuum device being used to carry the second board 10; and
a drive component 30, 34, the drive component driving at least one of the conveying mechanism 6b and the vacuum device 5a, 5b, 5c to enable the conveying mechanism or the vacuum device to drive the carried board. See, in particular, Figures 2, 9-10, 16, and 17A-17B and paragraphs [0078], [0083]-[0084], and [0087]-[0111].
With respect to claim 8, Mantani et al. teaches a stencil 22, the stencil being arranged above the conveying mechanism 6b; wherein the drive component 30, 34 is configured to enable the conveying mechanism 6b and the vacuum device 5a, 5b, 5c to drive the carried boards 10 to make the upper surfaces of the board 10 move close to a lower surface of the stencil, as shown in Figures 9-10 and 16.
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.
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mantani et al. (US 2019/0118525 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cobb (US 3,812,779).
With respect to claim 2, Mantani et al. teach a printing system as recited including the drive component being connected to the vacuum device to enable the drive component to drive the vacuum device to move, but fails to specifically teach the printing system includes a clutch mechanism as recited. However, Cobb teaches the provision of a clutch mechanism that engages a drive component such as a motor to enable the drive component to drive a conveying mechanism to move is well known in the art, as exemplified by the clutch 39 and drive component 32 for the conveyor 24-26, as described in Cobb in column 3, lines 33-66, column 6, lines 21-29 and shown in Figure 2. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a clutch mechanism as taught by Cobb in the system of Mantani et al. to provide a mechanism that engages the drive component with the clutch mechanism to enable the drive component to drive the conveying mechanism to move to allow for controlled conveying of the boards through the device.
With respect to claim 3, note Mantani et al. teaches the conveying mechanism 6b is capable of conveying the first board 10 and second board 10 in a first direction (i.e., the horizontal transport direction) and the drive component 30, 34 is capable of driving the vacuum device 5a, 5b, 5c to move in a second direction (i.e., the vertical transport direction).
With respect to claim 4, note Mantani et al. teaches the conveying mechanism 6b comprises a pair of conveying mechanisms (see Figures 17A-17B which illustrate the pair of conveying mechanisms--one located under each end of the holder 9 adjacent the clamps 7) with the vacuum device 5a, 5b, 5c located between the pair of conveying portions.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mantani et al. (US 2019/0118525 A1) in view of Cobb (US 3,812,779) as applied to claims 2-4 above, and further in view of Gong et al. (US 2020/0383212 A).
With respect to claim 5, Mantani et al. as modified by Cobb teach a printing system as recited with the exception of the boards including identification codes and the printing system including an identification device configured to identify the identification codes to obtain parameter information. However, Gong et al. teaches the provision of using a scanner to obtain identification codes from PCBs in order to obtain parameter information (such as board length, width, thickness, etc.) before printing, as described in paragraphs [0015] and [0022] of Gong et al. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Mantani et al. as modified to include boards with codes and a reader device to read the codes as taught by Gong et al. to allow for identification of the board properties for the individual boards and to provide individualized control of the printing process dependent upon these board properties.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 9-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
With respect to claim 6, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest a printing system having all of the structure as recited, in combination with and particularly including, a control device, the control device being configured to be capable of receiving the parameter information obtained by the identification device and controlling the drive component and the clutch mechanism according to the parameter information.
With respect to claim 9 in particular, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest a printing system having all of the structure as recite, in combination with and particularly including, the clutch mechanism comprising at least one clamp, each of the at least one clamp being connected to the drive component to enable the drive component to drive the clamp to move; and at least one guide rod, the at least one guide rod being arranged corresponding to the at least one clamp, and each of the at least one guide rod being connected to the conveying mechanism; wherein each of the at least one clamp is configured to be capable of clamping and releasing the corresponding guide rod to enable the drive component to engage with or disengage from the conveying mechanism.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Horie et al. (US 2015/0321464 A1) and Tanaka (JP 2011-031588 A) each teach a printing system including a conveying mechanism and vacuum device having similarities to the claimed subject matter that are readily apparent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESLIE J THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2161. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6:00 pm.
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, Stephen D Meier can be reached at 571-272-7149. 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.
/Leslie J Thompson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853