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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR 10-2023-0170034, filed on 11/29/2023.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The title “Chip Ejector” is used by two US applications (US 18/200,068 and US 18/916,018) and is part of the title “Chip Ejector and Chip Removal Method Using the Same” for US 16/568,562. While not exactly the same as “Chip Ejector Apparatus” as stated for this application, it is similar enough that it is recommended to provide a more descriptive title.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0001 references “chip”, “chip ejector”, and “mount tape”. Paragraph 0002 references “dies”, “dicing tape”, and “die ejector”. From examiner’s interpretation, the terms “chip” and “die” are referring to the same object. Furthermore, “mount tape” and “dicing tape” are referring to the same object. The use of multiple terms for the same objects may cause confusion; clarification is recommended..
Paragraph 0003 sentence 1 states "The provides a chip ejector ...". This sentence seems to be missing a word or words between "The" and "provides" and should be rectified to avoid confusion.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 14 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.
Claim 14 is indefinite as Claim 12 states "wherein a plurality of holes extend from an upper surface of the second body to a lower surface of the second body in a vertical direction" which is interpreted as the second body having a plurality of holes within its body. Claim 14, which is dependent on Claim 12, states "wherein the second body is located in spaces between the plurality of holes of the holder". This language is confusing and a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to interpret what is being defined. This renders the claim indefinite and appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes, the phrase above is ignored and the claim is interpreted as “The chip ejector apparatus of claim 12, wherein the plurality of holes are arranged in the first horizontal direction, and a second horizontal direction perpendicular to the first horizontal direction.”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6 does not suggest a further limitation over the claims, namely claims 1 and 5, of which it is dependent on. It states "at least two or more", which may be interpretated as broader than "a first vertical pin" from claim 1 and "a second vertical pin" from claim 5. Since the previous claims are limited to exactly two pins, a first and second one, claim 6 appears to broaden the claim and fails to provides additional limitations that narrow claims 1 and 5 from which claim 6 depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20200294839 A1), hereinafter Lee, in view of Anker (US 20030000635 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches
A chip ejector apparatus (Figure 1, chip ejecting apparatus 1000; Paragraph 0020, a chip ejecting apparatus 1000) comprising:
a holder (Figures 1, table 200 and ejector unit 300; Paragraph 0020, may include a table 200, an ejector unit 300)
located below a chip (Figure 1, plurality of chips 120; Paragraph 0021, A plurality of chips 120 may be provided on the table 200)
and defining a plurality of holes extending in a vertical direction (Figure 2, gas holes 310; Paragraph 0029, The ejector unit 300 may include a plurality of gas holes 310);
a pin support located below the holder, wherein an upper surface of the pin support is adjacent to the holder (Figure 3, eject pin driver 325; Paragraph 0037, The eject pins 320 may be fixed to the eject pin driver 325);
a first vertical pin extending lengthwise in the vertical direction (Figure 3, eject pins 320; Paragraph 0034, may include one or more eject pins 320; Paragraph 0035, the eject pins 320 may extend in a vertical direction)
and disposed on the upper surface of the pin support (Figure 3, see eject pins 320 and eject pin driver 325; Paragraph 0037, The eject pins 320 may be fixed to the eject pin driver 325),
wherein the first vertical pin is inserted into a first hole of the plurality of holes (Figure 2, see gas holes 310 and eject pins 320),
and wherein a lengthwise direction of the first vertical pin is parallel to the vertical direction (Figure 3, eject pins 320; Paragraph 0035, the eject pins 320 may extend in a vertical direction).
Lee fails to teach a support rod coupled to a lower surface of the pin support and configured to be driven in the vertical direction and a horizontal bar extending lengthwise in a first horizontal direction and coupled to an upper surface of the first vertical pin, wherein a lengthwise direction of the horizontal bar is parallel to the first horizontal direction.
However, Anker teaches
a support rod coupled to a lower surface of the pin support (Figure 3, plunger 45; Paragraph 0052, the ejector pins 46 passed through the bores 47 through operation of the plunger 45)
and configured to be driven in the vertical direction (Figure 3, see plunger 45)
and a horizontal bar extending lengthwise in a first horizontal direction (Figure 3, workpiece carrier 4; Paragraph 0037, at least substantially rigidly constructed workpiece carrier 4)
and coupled to an upper surface of the first vertical pin (Figure 3, see workpiece carrier 4 and ejector pins 46),
wherein a lengthwise direction of the horizontal bar is parallel to the first horizontal direction (Figure 3, see workpiece carrier 4).
Regarding the support rod, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a plunger as taught by Anker into the chip ejecting apparatus of Lee to provide the vertical movement necessary for the pin support to lift the chip (Anker Paragraph 0049, the first workpiece carrier 2 of this embodiment is separated from the first retaining device 6 through the operation of the plunger 41 of the first ejection device 40).
Regarding the horizontal bar, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a workpiece carrier as taught by Anker to the chip ejecting apparatus of Lee as a means of preventing deformation or fracture of the chips (Anker Paragraph 0002, A temporary gluing on so-termed workpiece carriers, … , in particular very thin and brittle workpieces while this treatment is being carried out so as to avoid a deformation of the workpieces or indeed fracture thereof).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Anker to Lee because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (handling or holding of wafers, substrates, or devices during manufacture), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the teaching above for claim 1, Lee further teaches
wherein the holder has a first body (Figure 1, table 200; Paragraph 0020, a table 200)
and a second body (Figure 1, ejector unit 300; Paragraph 0020, an ejector unit 300),
wherein the plurality of holes extends from an upper surface of the second body to a lower surface of the second body in the vertical direction (Figure 2, ejector unit 300 and gas holes 310; Paragraph 0029, The ejector unit 300 may include a plurality of gas holes 310),
and wherein an upper surface of the first body is higher than the upper surface of the second body relative to the upper surface of the pin support in the vertical direction (Figure 1, see table 200 and ejector unit 300).
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the teaching above for claim 1, Lee further teaches
wherein the second body includes a plurality of first patterns extending in the first horizontal direction and a plurality of second patterns extending in a second horizontal direction, wherein the plurality of first patterns and the plurality of second patterns are arranged to form a grid pattern when viewed in the vertical direction, and wherein the plurality of holes are disposed at a plurality of cross regions among the plurality of first patterns and the plurality of second patterns (Figure 2, ejector unit 300 and gas holes 310; Paragraph 0029, the plurality of gas holes 310 may be arranged in a lattice or matrix formation).
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the teaching above for claim 1, Lee further teaches
a second vertical pin extending in the vertical direction (Figure 3, eject pins 320; Paragraph 0034, may include one or more eject pins 320; Paragraph 0035, the eject pins 320 may extend in a vertical direction)
and disposed on the upper surface of the pin support (Figure 3, see eject pins 320 and eject pin driver 325; Paragraph 0037, The eject pins 320 may be fixed to the eject pin driver 325),
wherein the second vertical pin is inserted into a second hole, different from the first hole, of the plurality of holes (Figure 2, see gas holes 310 and eject pins 320).
Lee fails to teach wherein the second vertical pin is coupled to the horizontal bar.
However, Anker teaches wherein the second vertical pin is coupled to the horizontal bar. (Figure 3, see workpiece carrier 4 and ejector pins 46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a horizontal bar as taught by Anker with the second vertical pin of Lee as a means of exerting pressure on the chip (Anker Paragraph 0014, This ejection device advantageously operates at least one ejector pin or a pressure gas device when carrying out the separation step so as to exert a pressure on the workpiece to be separated).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Anker to Lee because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (handling or holding of wafers, substrates, or devices during manufacture), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the teaching above for claim 5, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to try a finite number of potential solutions regarding the position of the opposite side surfaces of a horizontal bar, as taught by Anker, in regards to the position of the outer surfaces of the two vertical pins. Because the horizontal bar is coupled to each vertical pin, there must exist a physical relationship between them. The potential physical relationships are wherein opposite side surfaces of the horizontal bar in the first horizontal direction are:
outwardly distant from an outer side surface of the first vertical pin and an outer side surface of the second vertical pin, respectively.
coplanar with an outer side surface of the first vertical pin and an outer side surface of the second vertical pin, respectively.
inwardly distant from an outer side surface of the first vertical pin and an outer side surface of the second vertical pin, respectively, while also outwardly distant from an inner side surface of the first vertical pin and an inner side surface of the second vertical pin, respectively.
There is no solution wherein either side surface of the horizontal bar in the first horizontal direction is inwardly distant from or coplanar with an inner side surface of the first vertical pin or an inner side surface of the second vertical pin, respectively, as this would cause the horizontal bar to be uncoupled from the respective vertical pin.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to practice the limitations of this claim with a reasonable expectation of success by pursing these finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the teachings of Lee in view of Anker. For further information regarding this rationale, see MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Regarding claim 8, in addition to the teaching above for claim 1, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to try a finite number of potential solutions regarding the length of a horizontal bar, as taught by Anker, in the first horizontal direction in regards to length of the chip in the first horizontal direction. Because both the chip and horizontal bar have a physical length in the first horizontal direction, there must be a relationship between them. The potential relationships are wherein a length of the horizontal bar in the first horizontal direction is:
substantially equal to a length of the chip in the first horizontal direction
substantially greater than a length of the chip in the first horizontal direction
substantially less than a length of the chip in the first horizontal direction
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to practice the limitation of this claim with a reasonable expectation of success by pursing these finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions for the teachings of Lee in view of Anker. For further information regarding this rationale, see MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the teaching above for claim 5, Lee further teaches
a third vertical pin extending in the vertical direction (Figure 3, eject pins 320; Paragraph 0034, may include one or more eject pins 320; Paragraph 0035, the eject pins 320 may extend in a vertical direction)
and disposed on the upper surface of the pin support (Figure 3, see eject pins 320 and eject pin driver 325; Paragraph 0037, The eject pins 320 may be fixed to the eject pin driver 325),
wherein the third vertical pin is inserted into a third hole, different from the first hole and the second hole, of the plurality of holes (Paragraph 0034, it is illustrated that the eject pins 320 form a portion of the lattice form formed by the plurality of gas holes 310, but the inventive concept is not limited thereto. For example, the arrangement of the eject pin 320 may be varied according to a shape of the target chip 125 provided on the table 200; it is implied that the third vertical pin could be inserted in any of the available gas holes not occupied by the first and second pins)
and wherein the first hole, the second hole, and the third hole are consecutively arranged in the first horizontal direction (Figure 3, see eject pins 320 and gas holes 310; Paragraph 0034, it is illustrated that the eject pins 320 form a portion of the lattice form formed by the plurality of gas holes 310, but the inventive concept is not limited thereto; it is implied that the vertical pins could be arranged in any fashion in regards to the gas holes as needed, which includes a consecutives horizontal arrangement).
Lee fails to teach wherein the horizontal bar is coupled to the third vertical pin.
However, Anker teaches wherein the horizontal bar is coupled to the third vertical pin. (Figure 3, see workpiece carrier 4 and ejector pins 46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a horizontal bar as taught by Anker with the third vertical pin of Lee as a means of exerting pressure on the chip (Anker Paragraph 0014, This ejection device advantageously operates at least one ejector pin or a pressure gas device when carrying out the separation step so as to exert a pressure on the workpiece to be separated).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Anker to Lee because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (handling or holding of wafers, substrates, or devices during manufacture), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the teachings above for claim 5, Lee further teaches wherein a third hole is disposed in a space between the first vertical pin and the second vertical pin, wherein no vertical pin is inserted into the third hole, and wherein the first hole, the second hole, and the third hole are arranged in the first horizontal direction (Figure 2, see eject pins 320 layout in gas holes 310; Paragraph 0034, it is illustrated that four eject pins 320 are disposed in the ejector unit 300).
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches
A chip ejector apparatus comprising (see the rejection of claim 1 above):
a holder having a first body and a second body, wherein a plurality of holes extend from an upper surface of the second body to a lower surface of the second body in a vertical direction (see the rejection of claim 2 above),
and wherein a mount tape that is attached to a chip is disposed on an upper surface of the first body (Figure 1, mount tape 110 and a plurality of chips 120; Paragraph 0024, the dicing tape 110, to which the plurality of chips 120 are attached, may be fixed to a frame 230 of the table 200);
a pin support located below the holder (see the rejection of claim 1 above);
a plurality of vertical pins (Figure 3, eject pins 320; Paragraph 0034, the ejector unit 300 may include one or more eject pins 320)
disposed on an upper surface of the pin support (Figure 3, see eject pins 320 and eject pin driver 325; Paragraph 0037, The eject pins 320 may be fixed to the eject pin driver 325),
wherein each vertical pin of the plurality of vertical pins extends lengthwise in the vertical direction (Figure 3, eject pins 320; Paragraph 0034, may include one or more eject pins 320; Paragraph 0035, the eject pins 320 may extend in a vertical direction)
and is inserted into a corresponding hole among the plurality of holes (Figure 3, eject pins 320; Paragraph 0034, the eject pins 320 form a portion of the lattice form formed by the plurality of gas holes 310);
wherein the upper surface of the first body is higher than the upper surface of the second body in the vertical direction relative to the upper surface of the pin support (see the rejection of claim 2 above),
and wherein the first horizontal direction is parallel to a lengthwise direction of the horizontal bar and the vertical direction is parallel to a lengthwise direction of each vertical pin of the plurality of vertical pins (Figure 2, see ejector unit 300; reference is interpreted to define the vertical direction aligned with the lengthwise direction of the gas holes and the first and second horizontal directions along the top edges of the ejector unit, respectively).
Lee fails to teach a support rod coupled to a lower surface of the pin support and configured to be driven in the vertical direction and a horizontal bar extending lengthwise in a first horizontal direction and coupled to an upper surface of each vertical pin of the plurality of vertical pins.
However, Anker teaches a support rod coupled to a lower surface of the pin support and configured to be driven in the vertical direction (see claim 1 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection above) and a horizontal bar extending lengthwise in a first horizontal direction and coupled to an upper surface of each vertical pin of the plurality of vertical pins (Figure 3, workpiece carrier 4; Paragraph 0037, at least substantially rigidly constructed workpiece carrier 4).
Regarding the support rod, see claim 1 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection above.
Regarding the horizontal bar, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a workpiece carrier as taught by Anker to the plurality of vertical pins of the chip ejecting apparatus as a means of preventing deformation or fracture of the chips (Anker Paragraph 0002, A temporary gluing on so-termed workpiece carriers, … , in particular very thin and brittle workpieces while this treatment is being carried out so as to avoid a deformation of the workpieces or indeed fracture thereof).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Anker to Lee because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (handling or holding of wafers, substrates, or devices during manufacture), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 14, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Lee teaches wherein the plurality of holes are arranged in the first horizontal direction and a second horizontal direction perpendicular to the first horizontal direction (Figure 2, see ejector unit 300 and gas holes 310; Paragraph 0029, the plurality of gas holes 310 may be arranged in a lattice or matrix formation; reference is interpreted to define the vertical direction aligned with the lengthwise direction of the gas holes and the first and second horizontal directions along the top edges of the ejector unit, respectively).
Regarding claim 15, in addition to the teaching above for claim 12, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to try a finite number of potential solutions regarding the position of a side surface of a horizontal bar, as taught by Anker, in regards to the position of the outer surfaces of the first vertical pin in the plurality of vertical pins. Because the horizontal bar is coupled to each vertical pin, there must exist a physical relationship between them. The potential physical relationships are wherein a side surface, in the first horizontal direction, of the horizontal bar in the first horizontal direction is:
coplanar with a side surface, in the first horizontal direction, of a first vertical pin of the plurality of vertical pins.
outwardly distant from a side surface, in the first horizontal direction, of a first vertical pin of the plurality of vertical pins.
There is no solution wherein a side surface, in the first horizontal direction, of the horizontal bar in the first horizontal direction is inwardly distant from a side surface, in the first horizontal direction, of a first vertical pin of the plurality of vertical pins as this would cause the horizontal bar to be uncoupled from the first vertical pin of the plurality of vertical pins.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to practice the limitations of this claim with a reasonable expectation of success by pursing these finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the teachings of Lee in view of Anker. For further information regarding this rationale, see MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Regarding claim 16, in addition to the teaching above for claim 12, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to try a finite number of potential solutions regarding the length of a horizontal bar, as taught by Anker, in the first horizontal direction in regards to length of the chip in the first horizontal direction. Because both the chip and horizontal bar have a physical length in the first horizontal direction, there must be a relationship between them. The potential relationships are wherein a length of the horizontal bar in the first horizontal direction is:
substantially equal to a length of the chip in the first horizontal direction
substantially greater than a length of the chip in the first horizontal direction
substantially less than a length of the chip in the first horizontal direction
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to practice the limitation of this claim with a reasonable expectation of success by pursing these finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions for the teachings of Lee in view of Anker. For further information regarding this rationale, see MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 18, while prior art teaches
A chip ejector apparatus comprising:
a holder having a first body and a second body, wherein the second body defines a plurality of holes, wherein the plurality of holes extend from an upper surface of the second body to a lower surface of the second body in a vertical direction,
and wherein a mount tape that is attached to a chip is disposed on an upper surface of the first body;
a pin support located below the holder;
a support rod coupled to a lower surface of the pin support and configured to be driven in the vertical direction;
a plurality of vertical pins disposed on an upper surface of the pin support, wherein each vertical pin of the plurality of vertical pins extends lengthwise in the vertical direction and is inserted into a corresponding hole among the plurality of holes;
and horizontal bar coupled to an upper surface of each vertical pin of the plurality of vertical pins and extending lengthwise in a first horizontal direction
as described in the 35 U.S.C 103 rejections above,
the prior art fails to teach or render obvious the specifics of the horizontal bar recited in claim 18.
While the prior art teaches systems with multiple support structures which in essence form a horizontal surface to support chips, these structures are operated separately from each other. Furthermore, while the prior art teaches a horizontal bar attached to one or more vertical pins, the prior art fails to teach any specific dimensions, relative placement, or detachable coupling of such a bar relative to the chip, system, and vertical pins. These features distinguish over the prior art and are thus considered inventive..
Regarding claims 19 and 20, both are allowable due to their dependence from claim 18.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 3, 11, 13, and 17 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:
Regarding claim 3, while the prior art teaches the generic presence of a horizontal bar attached to at least one vertical pin, it does not teach any specifics regarding the size of such bar. Thus, this claim does distinguish over prior art.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, this claim provides specifics of the horizontal bar position relative to the rest of the system. Prior art fails to teach specifics of the horizontal bar in such a fashion. Thus, this claim does distinguish over prior art.
Regarding claim 13, this claim contains the same claim language of claim 3 and thus it does distinguish over the prior art for the reasons listed above.
Regarding claim 17, it describes the coupling of the vertical pins to the horizontal bar such that it is detachable from each vertical pin. While prior art teaches that the vertical pins are connected to the horizontal bar, it does not provide any reference to detachability of such a connection. Thus, this claim does distinguish over prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure [See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited] because the prior art references contain
subject matter that related to one or more of the Applicant’s claim limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN THOMAS KOSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-7277. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:00 am - 4:30 pm EST).
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, Jacob S Scott can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
/J.T.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/JACOB S. SCOTT/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights