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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Murphy (5,890,599).
Regarding claim 1, Murphy discloses a jig 410 comprising: at least one pocket (created by framework, figures 17-19) comprising: an opening through a thickness of the jig (thickness shown in figure 19) ; a plurality of chamfered corner openings (formed by 431, 432, figure 19), each of the plurality of chamfered corner openings located at a corner of the at least one pocket arranged around the opening; and angled sides (shown below) of the opening, wherein the angled sides extend to a top of a sidewall 433, 434 of the at least one pocket; wherein the at least one pocket is formed in a body portion of the jig (figures 17-19).
PNG
media_image1.png
708
886
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Murphy shows angles, but does not state that the angle of each of the angled sides being 13 degrees from vertical. However, “vertical” is not defined; therefore; a vertical can be formed from any vantage point on the jig. Therefore, the claim limitation would be met.
Regarding claim 3, Murphy discloses a chamfer on each side of the plurality of chamfered corner openings comprises a rounded edge 437, 438).
Regarding claim 5, Murphy discloses a guide 443 disposed along an edge of the opening comprises a completely angled side (the sides of 443 are angled) (figure 19).
Regarding claim 6, Murphy shows angles, but does not state that the angle of each of the angled sides being 13 degrees from vertical. However, “vertical” is not defined; therefore; a vertical can be formed from any vantage point on the jig. Therefore, the claim limitation would be met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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) 7-10, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Murphy (5,890,599).
Regarding claim 7, Murphy discloses a jig 410 comprising: at least one pocket (created by framework, figures 17-19) comprising: angled sides 433, 434 around an opening (figures 18-19), wherein the at least one pocket is formed in a body portion of the jig (figures 1-2, 18-19). Murphy does not specifically disclose that the jig is configured to receive a semiconductor substrate therein during a reflow process. However, the jig is used for storage and transportation. The jig can be used for storage during the initial steps (prior to any heating) of the reflow process or after the melting has been performed for cooling and/or storage. The claim does not require that jig is used during heating.
Murphy shows angles, but does not state that the angle of each of the angled sides being 13 degrees from vertical. However, “vertical” is not defined; therefore; a vertical can be formed from any vantage point on the jig. Therefore, the claim limitation would be met.
With that being said, if the Applicant does not agree that the angle is 13 degrees, the current specification only states that the angle “may be 13 degrees from vertical” and does not give any significance or criticality to the angle being 13 degrees. This appears to be a design choice. To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to determine the ideal angle required for the jig to ensure that the component is held properly without movement or damage to the component.
Regarding claim 8, Murphy discloses at least one chamfered corner opening (formed from 430) (figure 19) located at a corner of the at least one pocket (figures 18-19).
Regarding claim 9, Murphy discloses a chamfer on a side of the at least one chamfered corner openings comprise a rounded edge 438 (figure 19).
Regarding claim 10, Murphy discloses that the at least one chamfered corner opening comprises an arc coupled with the rounded edge. This would inherently happen as the rounded edge would have an arc. Therefore, the claim limitation is met.
Regarding claim 12, Murphy discloses a guide 443 disposed along an edge of the opening comprises a completely angled side (figure 19).
Regarding claim 13, Murphy shows angles, but does not state that the angle of each of the angled sides being 13 degrees from vertical. However, “vertical” is not defined; therefore; a vertical can be formed from any vantage point on the jig. Therefore, the claim limitation would be met.
With that being said, if the Applicant does not agree that the angle is 13 degrees, the current specification only states that the angle “may be 13 degrees from vertical” and does not give any significance or criticality to the angle being 13 degrees. This appears to be a design choice. To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to determine the ideal angle required for the jig to ensure that the component is held properly without movement or damage to the component.
Regarding claim 14, Murphy discloses three guides 440, 441, 443 disposed along edges of the opening, each guide of the three guides comprising a completely angled side (figure 19).
Claim(s) 2, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy (5,890,599) as applied to claims 1, 5 above.
This is an alternate rejection if the Applicant does not agree that the angles are 13 degrees.
Regarding claim 2, Murphy does not specifically state that the angle is 13 degrees. The current specification only states that the angle “may be 13 degrees from vertical” and does not give any significance or criticality to the angle being 13 degrees. This appears to be a design choice. To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to determine the ideal angle required for the jig to ensure that the component is held properly without movement or damage to the component.
Regarding claim 6, Murphy does not specifically state that the angle is 13 degrees. The current specification only states that the angle “may be 13 degrees from vertical” and does not give any significance or criticality to the angle being 13 degrees. This appears to be a design choice. To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to determine the ideal angle required for the jig to ensure that the component is held properly without movement or damage to the component.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-25 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: prior art was not found that taught or suggested a jig as claimed that included wherein the at least one pocket is formed in a body portion of the jig; and wherein each of the plurality of chamfered corner openings comprise at least one square edge wherein an arc portion of the plurality of chamfered corner openings transitions to a side of the opening through the thickness of the jig.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-6 are moot as the rejection has changed.
The Applicant argues that Murphy cannot be used during a reflow process.
The Examiner disagrees. The claim does not state that the tray is actually used in an oven or during heating of the semiconductors. The reflow process can include the semiconductors in a tray being prepared or pretreated for an oven/furnace. The reflow process can include the placement of completed semiconductors after the reflow has been completed. The reflow process does not have to just include the actual heating of the semiconductors. The claim does not specifically state that the tray goes into the oven/furnace during the reflowing.
The Applicant argues that vertical would mean perpendicular to the plane of the jig.
The Examiner maintains the current rejection. If this is what the Applicant intended, then the Examiner suggests amending. However, the 103 would be maintained as this value appears to be a design choice as stated above. There has been no criticality associated with the 13 degrees.
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 ERIN B SAAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3634. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a-6p.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 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 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.
/ERIN B SAAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights