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 .
Drawings
The replacement sheets of drawings were received on July 14, 2026. The corrections presented in the replacement drawings are approved, however the drawings remain objected to for the following issues:
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the single mask with multiple printing patterns, the printing part, the screen printer, and the wire belt as recited in claim 1 and the wire belt and the wire drive motor as recited in claim 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 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.
Again, the claims are replete with antecedent basis problems and ambiguous and unclear language. These issues render the claims unclear with respect to the metes and bounds of the claims. Note that the claims are written in a complex format that makes them awkward and difficult to ascertain which structure/structural connections are being positively recited. Note MPEP 608.01(m) states “Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation.” See also 37 CFR 1.75(i). The following is a listing of some of the problems that exist in the claims but it is not intended to be an exhaustive listing. In response to this Office Action, the claims should be carefully reviewed and amended as necessary to insure the claim language is clear in meaning and scope and in compliance with 35 USC 112.
With respect to claim 1, in line 6, it is suggested that the term “the mask” be amended to recite --the single mask-- to use consistent terminology throughout the claims. Note this term in lines 10, 16, 22 and 25 should also be corrected. Additionally, in line 9, the language “the cylinder (120) formed in a plate shape, plate-shaped base panel (100) formed…” is unclear in meaning and scope. First, it is unclear how a cylinder can be “formed in a plate shape” since a cylinder by definition is a solid figure with straight parallel sides and a circular or oval cross section. The cylinder (120) as it has been illustrated in Figure 3, for example, appears to be a solid figure with straight parallel sides and a circular or oval cross-section and does not appear to be “plate shaped” as recited. Therefore, this language in unclear in meaning and scope. Additionally, it is noted the claim recites “guide shafts (110) formed on an upper surface of the cylinder (120)” in line 8, but it is not clear that this language is accurately supported by the drawings and specification since the guide shafts 110 appear to be formed on an upper surface of the plate shaped base panel 100 as shown, for example, in Figures 3 and 14. Also, in line 10, it is suggested that the term --the-- be inserted before “guide shafts” since the guide shafts were previously recited in line 8. Furthermore, in lines 11-12, the term “the operation” has no proper antecedent basis since the term “operation” was not previously recited. Additionally, in lines 13-14, the term “the X-axis and Y-axis” and the term “the plane” have no proper antecedent basis and it is unclear which plane and/or relative structure and X- and Y-axes are being defined. Additionally, in line 24, it is suggested that the term --the-- be inserted before “multiple printed circuit boards (P)” since this term was previously recited in lines 3-4. Also, in line 25, the phrase “having formed” is awkward and unclear in meaning as to what it is referring to.
With respect to claim 2, the phrase “the forward and backward side of the plane” in lines 9-10 in unclear in meaning as to what plane is being referred to and furthermore no forward or backward sides of the plane were previously recited in the claim and therefore there is no proper antecedent basis for these terms. Additionally, in line 12, it is suggested that the term “an lower surface” be amended to recite --a lower surface-- to use appropriate grammar. Additionally, in lines 20-21, the term “the left and right sides on the plane” again are unclear in meaning as to what plane is being referred to and further because the term “the left and right sides” does not have proper antecedent basis.
With respect to claim 3, the phrase “the front-rear Y-axis and left-right X-axis” as recited in lines 3-4 has no proper antecedent basis because while the X-axis and Y-axis were previously recited in claim 1, lines 13-14, it is not clear if the term in claim 3 is referring to the same X- and Y-axis as previously recited or defining a different set of axes.
With respect to claim 4, the phrase “comprises a vacuum base (310) in which a vacuum base (310), in which a joint hole (312) to which the tip of the cylinder rod (122) is coupled…” is unclear in meaning and scope as to what relationship is being defined.
With respect to claim 6, the term “the front and rear” in line 3 have no proper antecedent basis. Additionally, the terms “the front and rear ends” in line 12 and “the front and rear rail blocks” in lines 12-13 have no proper antecedent basis. Additionally in line 14, the term “the widths” is unclear and to what width of what structure is being referred to. In line 16, it is suggested that the term “a wire belt” be amended to --the wire belt-- since the wire belt was previously recited in line 22 of claim 1. Also, in line 17, the term “the upper part” has no proper antecedent basis. In line 18, it is suggested that the term “the mask” be amended to recited --the single mask-- to use consistent terminology. Additionally, in line 19, the term “the side” has no proper antecedent basis.
With respect to claim 7, the term “the bottom surfaces” in line 4 has no proper antecedent basis. Additionally, the term “the X-axis and Y-axis sides of the multiple printed circuit boards” in lines 5-6 has no proper antecedent basis because the circuit boards were never defined to have X-axis and Y-axis sides. Additionally, in line 6, the term “the operation” has no proper antecedent basis. In line 8, the term “the upper surface” has no proper antecedent basis. Additionally, it is suggested that the term “the mask” in line 9 be amended to recite --the single mask-- to use consistent terminology throughout the claims.
With respect to claim 9, in line 1, the term “the multiple printed circuit boards (P)” has no proper antecedent basis. Additionally, in line 9, the term “the carrier boat (400)” has no proper antecedent basis. Also, in lines 12-13, the phrase “as described above” is unclear in meaning and scope as to what specifically it is referring to that has been previously described. In line 14, it is suggested that the term “conveyor frames (560)” be amended to recite --the conveyor frames (560)-- since the conveyor frames were previously recited in line 8. Similarly, in line 15, it is suggested that the phrase “a width of the carrier boat of a width adjustment conveyor unit (500)” be amended to recite --the width of the carrier boat-- since the carrier boat width was previously recited in line 9 and this amendment makes the language clear and concise. In line 16, it is suggested that the term “the mask” be amended to recite --the single mask-- to use consistent terminology throughout the claims. Note a similar change should be made to the term in line 18. Also, the terms “the vacuum suction part (300)” and “the bottoms” in line 20, the terms “the lifting operation” and “the cylinder rod” in lines 21-22, and the term “the base panel” in line 22 have no proper antecedent basis. Furthermore, the following terms lack proper antecedent basis: “the upper side” (line 24), “the cylinder rod (122)” (line 25), “the alignment holes (602)” (line 28), “the alignment driving part (200)” (line 32), “the X-axis and Y-axis lines” (line 34). Additionally, in line 39, it is suggested that the term “the printing pattern” be amended to recite --the multiple printing patterns-- since multiple printing patterns were previously recited, such as in line 2.
With respect to claim 10, in line 6, it is suggested that the term “a X-axis batch alignment step” be amended to recite --an X-axis batch alignment step-- to correct a grammatical error. Additionally, the following terms lack proper antecedent basis: “the drive part base panel (210)” (line 7), “the micro-driving” (line 8), “the inner side surface” and “the Y-axis line” (lines 11-12), “the micro-driving” (lines 14-15), “the inner side surface” and “the X-axis line” (line 18), “the inner side surfaces of the alignment holes” (line 20).
With respect to claim 11, the term “the inner side surfaces” and “the outer side surface” in line 2 does not have any proper antecedent basis.
Again, due to the extreme indefiniteness of the claims with respect to the 35 USC 112 rejections set forth above, an examination of these claims with respect to the prior art could not be completed at this time since the exact scope and meaning of the claims could not be readily determined. An examination of claims 1-12 with respect to the prior art will be completed when the claims are in proper compliance with 35 USC 112.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the drawing corrections, it is noted that applicant merely states “In response, appropriate corrections have been made” and does not specifically point out where the claimed elements have been properly illustrated in the replacement drawing sheets. The Examiner could not determine that the single mask with multiple printing patterns, the printing part, the screen printer, the wire belt and the wire drive motor as recited in claims 1 and 6 have been properly illustrated in the drawings. Therefore, this drawing objection is maintained.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112(b), again the applicant merely states “In response, corrections have been made” and does not provide any specificity as to how the various 35 USC 112(b) rejections have been remedied. While it appears that some of the 112 issues were addressed by applicant’s amendment, it is noted that many 112 issues remain, as set forth in the above rejection.
In view of the above reasons, the Examiner is not persuaded that the application is in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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-W 8:30-5:00 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
