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 without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 10/27/25 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that present claims are drawn to an apparatus. "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (MPEP 2114). Functional limitations are usually followed by a linking term “for”, “configured to”, “performing”, “carry out”, “execute” etc. and concerns operation of the apparatus. In the instant case, configured to support and to move the slab, configured to contact the slab (claim 1); to be able to position the applicator frame, to be able to release a conductive element (claim 2) refer to operational limitations and do not structurally contribute to the apparatus. Furthermore, examiner notes that, “inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” (MPEP 2115). A recitation with respect to the material intended to be worked upon by a claimed apparatus does not impose any structural limitations upon the claimed apparatus. For example, “slab” and “conductive element or paste” are workpiece materials which do not structurally limit the claimed machine.
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 1-15 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.
With respect to claim 1, it appears that phrases “the support surface” (lines 6, 7) and “the advancement direction” (line 8) lack proper antecedent basis. The claim should recite “the horizontal support surface” and “the horizontal advancement direction” to avoid ambiguity with other support surface(s) and direction(s). All dependent claims should also be reviewed to ensure consistency for these features. For purpose of examination, all claims are taken to mean: the horizontal support surface and the horizontal advancement direction.
With respect to claim 3, the phrase "preferably" (line 6) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, “preferably” is taken to mean optional.
With respect to claims 12-13, the phrase "preferably" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, “preferably” is taken to mean optional.
Appropriate corrections are requested.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martenson et al. (WO 2014/140192 A2, see attached document, “Martenson”) in view of Qiu et al. (WO 2021/003239 A1, see attached document, “Qiu”).
Regarding claim 1, Martenson discloses a machine for applying conductive paste on slabs comprising (figs. 8-12): a conveyor 2002, 3002 or 4002 (figs. 9-11) provided with a horizontal support surface configured to support a slab (workpiece W) and to move the slab along a horizontal advancement direction (figs. 9-11, [00125-00126]); and a movable device 2006, 3006 or 4006 (frame with depositing heads) for applying a conductive paste on the horizontal support surface at least along a first sliding direction parallel to the horizontal advancement direction (y-direction- figs. 9A, 10), so that a conductive element (e.g. paste or viscous media- [00116, 00134]) can be released/applied in two or more given axial positions, defined along the first sliding direction, of the slab on the conveyor following a translation along the first sliding direction [00112-00115, 00128-00129, 00148-00150].
Martenson is silent in terms of a centering unit. However, such mechanism is known in the art. Qiu (also directed to viscous fluid dispenser system- abstract) teaches a workpiece platform 8 having a flat support surface and including a centering unit 11 (fixture- fig. 1) configured to contact a workpiece by temporarily blocking and centering it on the support surface, wherein the fixture unit is adjustable to accommodate workpieces of varying sizes and/or shapes [0024]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a centering fixture into the conveyor of Martenson because doing so would enable to align the workpiece and be adjustable to accommodate workpieces of varying sizes and/or shapes, as suggested by Qiu. Thus, Martenson as modified by Qiu discloses a centering unit configured to contact and align the slab/workpiece in the machine.
As to claim 2, Martenson discloses that the application device comprises a first applicator frame 2006, 3006 or 4006 movable with respect to the conveyor along a first sliding direction parallel to the horizontal advancement direction (y-direction- fig. 9A, 10), so as to be able to position the first applicator frame in any given axial position, defined along the advancement direction of the slab resting on the support surface and to release a conductive element thereon in two or more axial positions on the slab W (figs. 9-10, [00112-00115, 00128-00129]).
As to claim 3, Martenson shows that the first applicator frame 2006 has a longitudinal extension along a longitudinal axis (x-axis- figs. 9A, 10) substantially horizontal and orthogonal to the first sliding direction (y-direction) and has a length substantially equal to the width of the support surface and a width less than the length of the slab so that it can be arranged superimposed in plan in any axial portion thereof that is less than its total axial length (fig. 9A). Examiner noted that “length of the slab” is based on workpiece and features relating to the workpiece do not structurally limit the apparatus since the machine in Martenson is configured to process slabs of different length(s) and/or width(s).
As to claim 4, Martenson shows that the first applicator frame 2006 or 3006 (figs. 9-10) is configured to release and apply a longitudinal conductive strip on the slab, wherein the conductive strip has a longitudinal extension mainly orthogonal to the horizontal advancement direction and extends longitudinally for a main portion of the length of the first applicator frame itself. The depositing heads in the machine of Martenson are designed to apply different forms of conductive materials, including powder, liquid, or bar/strip.
As to claim 5, Martenson teaches that the jetting apparatus frame includes gantry beams [0077-0080, fig. 8]. The conveyor in Martenson intrinsically includes at least one frame/support (not shown in figure). Additionally, Qiu also teaches a gantry positioning system 9 providing x, y and z movements and movably support a dispenser with four degrees of freedom (figs. 2-3; [0006, 0027]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the first applicator frame supported by a gantry frame slidably associated with a frame of the conveyor along the first horizontal sliding direction since gantry setup is well-known.
As to claim 6, Martenson discloses that the first applicator frame is vertically movable along a vertical direction (z-direction- figs. 9b, 10), alternating between a position distal from the conveyor and a position proximal to the conveyor [00115, 00128].
As to claim 8, in another embodiment, Martenson teaches at least two applicator frames 4004A-4004B with independently movable deposition head assemblies (fig. 11, [00148-00150]), wherein each deposition head is able to release viscous element/medium in two or more axial positions of the same slab/workpiece; the viscous medium may be different types [00152, 0155]. In this manner, the mount process would benefit from a machine adapted to mixed production, board modalities and specific component footprints on the PCB [00155, 00158]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a movable second applicator frame with respect to the conveyor along a first sliding direction in the machine of Martenson in order to fabricate components or assemblies for mixed production as necessary for different PCB board modalities, as suggested by Martenson.
As to claim 9, Martenson as modified in claim 8 above discloses a second applicator frame movable with respect to the conveyor along a second horizontal sliding direction and orthogonal to the first sliding direction, so as to be able to position the second applicator frame in any given transverse position and to release a conductive element to two or more transverse positions of the same slab/workpiece (fig. 11).
As to claim 10, Martenson teaches that the jetting apparatus frame includes gantry beams [0077-0080, fig. 8]. The conveyor in Martenson intrinsically includes at least one frame/support (not shown in figure). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the second applicator frame supported by a carriage slidably associated, along the second sliding direction, with a gantry frame slidably associated with a frame of the conveyor in the machine of Martenson since carriage and gantry setup are well-known movement mechanisms.
As to claim 11, Martenson discloses that the applicator frame is vertically movable along a vertical direction (z-direction- figs. 9b, 10), alternating between a position distal from the conveyor and a position proximal to the conveyor [00115, 00128].
As to claim 12, Martenson does not disclose that the applicator frame is rotatable about a vertical axis. However, such feature is known in the art. Qiu teaches a gantry positioning system with frame being rotatable about a vertical C axis thereby resulting in four degrees of freedom (figs. 2-3, [0026-0027]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide rotation capability to the applicator frames in Martenson because doing so would improve flexibility in positioning the applicator to apply the conductive element/medium to the workpiece.
As to claim 13, Martenson as modified in claim 8 above discloses that the second applicator frame has a longitudinal extension along a substantially horizontal longitudinal axis and has a length less than the width of the support surface along a direction orthogonal to the advancement direction (fig. 11).
As to claim 14, the second applicator frame is configured to apply an inscription or design on the slab/workpiece. Examiner notes that particular type of material (inscription or paste) does not limit the applicator frame.
Claim(s) 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martenson in view of Qiu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Doyle (CN 103476588 B, see attached document).
As to claims 7 and 15, Martenson or Qiu fails to mention the applicator frame comprising at least one doctor blade. However, Doyle (drawn to depositing viscous materials on a substrate) teaches it is known in prior art to spread dispensing paste by moving blade scrapper/squeegee (Background- [0006]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a spreading doctor blade in the applicator frame of Martenson since such blade/scrapper is conventionally known and because doing so would enable to effectively distribute the material/paste on the workpiece surface. It is also noted that only one blade is required due to term ‘or’. The combination of Martenson, Qiu & Doyle renders the claims obvious.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/26/24 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVANG R PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3636. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of Applicant. If Applicant wishes to communicate via email, a written authorization form must be filed by Applicant: Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The form may be filed via the Patent Center and can be found using the document description Internet Communications, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms. In limited circumstances, the Applicant may make an oral authorization for Internet communication. See MPEP § 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. 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 Center. For more information, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For questions, technical issues or troubleshooting, please contact the Patent Electronic Business Center at ebc@uspto.gov or 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DEVANG R PATEL/
Primary Examiner, AU 1735