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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities: In Figure 13, reference numeral 410 does not have any associated lead line making it unclear what structure it is intending to designate. Additionally, the drawing Figures contain reference numerals that are underlined and lack any associated lead line. 37 CFR 1.84(q) states that “Lead lines are required for each reference character except for those which indicate the surface or cross section on which they are placed. Such a reference character must be underlined to make it clear that a lead line has not been left out by mistake.” Since the underlined reference numerals in the Figures do not appear to be indicating a surface or cross-section, it is suggested that lead lines be added to each of these reference numerals. Please note that 37 CFR 1.84(r) states that lead lines with arrows can be used to designate the entire section towards which it points. Particular attention is invited to the following reference numerals:
reference numeral 200 in Figures 4-6;
reference numeral 300 in Figure 7;
reference numeral 400 in Figure 8;
reference numeral 500 in Figure 10;
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.
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 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses the phrase “The present invention relates to” which is language that should be avoided in an abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
It is noted that the specification, claims, abstract and drawings repeatedly use language enclosed in brackets. However, the use of brackets in patent prosecution is generally used to illustrate deleted subject matter. Therefore, it is suggested that the disclosure be amended to remove the brackets that have been used throughout.
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.
Note that the claims are replete with antecedent basis problems and ambiguous and unclear language. These issues make renders the claims unclear with respect to the metes and bounds of the claims. Additionally, it is noted that the claims include reference numerals throughout the claim text. Under MPEP 608.01(m), reference characters (numerals) corresponding to elements in the detailed description and drawings may be used in claims. However, these numerals should be enclosed in parentheses to avoid confusion with other numbers in the claim.
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, the terms “its” in both lines 7 and 8 are unclear because the term “its” is ambiguous in meaning as to which structure “its” is referring to. Additionally, in line 8, the phrase “is formed in a plate shape” is unclear in meaning as to which structure it is referring to. Similarly, in line 11, the term “a center side” is also unclear as to what structure is being defined to have a center side. In line 14, the term “the printed circuit board P” (singular) has no proper antecedent basis because multiple printed circuit boards (plural) were recited in lines 3-4 and it is unclear if the claim is reciting an additional printed circuit board or referring back to one of the previously recited boards. Additionally, in line 25 of claim 1, it is suggested that the term “a carrier boat” be deleted and replaced with --the carrier boat-- since the carrier boat was previously recited in line 14.
With respect to claim 2, it is suggested that the term --a-- be inserted before “forward” in line 5 to provide the appropriate article before the noun. Additionally, the term “its” in line 16 is unclear because the term “its” can be ambiguous in meaning as to what structure “its” is intending to refer to. Additionally, the term “the alignment motor” in line 19 is unclear in meaning because the claim has previously recited “an X-axis alignment motor” (line 5) and “a Y-axis alignment motor” (lines 13-14) and it is not clear which alignment motor is being referred to in line 19. In line 21 of claim 2, the term “the center” is unclear in meaning as to what structure it is referring to. Additionally, in line 19, it is suggested that the term “a cylinder rod” be deleted and replaced with the term --the cylinder rod-- since the cylinder rod was previously recited in claim 1.
With respect to claim 4, the following terms do not appear to have proper antecedent basis in the claim: “the joint hole 312” (line 2), “the same vertical line” (line 3), “the center” (line 4), “the lower surface” (line 4), “the vacuum part” {line 9), “the upper surface” (line 9), “the vacuum suction hole 324” (line 10), “the contact fixing band 326” (line 11), “the circumference side” (line 12), and “the printed circuit board P” (singular) (lines 12-13). Additionally, the phrase “stood up” in line 7 is unclear in meaning.
With respect to claim 5, the following terms do not appear to have proper antecedent basis in the claim: “the plane” (line 3), “the bottom surface” (line 3), “the printed circuit board” (singular)(lines 3-4), “the X-axis and Y-axis lines” (line7).
With respect to claim 6, it is noted that the claim recites “the conveyor frame 560” (singular) in line 16. However, the claim previously recites conveyor frames (plural) in line 11 and thus it is not clear whether the recitation in line 16 is referring back to one of the previously recited conveyor frames or if it is reciting an additional structure.
With respect to claim 7, the phrase “wherein the alignment jig 600 comprises multiple alignment holes 602” is a double recitation of language in claim 1 (lines 21-22).
With respect to claim 9, this claim is replete with antecedent basis problems. Note, for example, the following terms do not appear to have proper antecedent basis in the claim: “the multiple printed circuit boards,” “the printing part,” “the screen printer,” “the top,” “the solder printing,” “the alignment device,” “the width,” “the conveyor frames,” “the width adjustment conveyor unit 500,” “the width,” “the carrier boat 400,” “the anchoring pins 420,” “the through-absorbing parts 410,” “the number of channels,” “the alignment jig 600,” “the vacuum suction part 300,” “the bottoms,” “the lifting operation,” “the cylinder rod 122,” “the base panel 100,” “the carrier boat-loading step,” “the upper side,” “the alignment holes 602,” “the same plane,” “the X-axis adjustment panel 230,” “the Y-axis adjustment panel 250,” and “the X-axis and Y-axis lines.”
With respect to claim 10, the term “the X-axis alignment motor 220” and “the Y-axis alignment motor” have no proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kondo (JP 2008-135215 A) and Mantani et al. (US 2019/0118525 A1) each teach a screen printer and alignment 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
Prosecution Insights