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 based on an application filed in Japan on 02/14/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2024020247 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/14/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because drawing are lack of proper indication which drawing is Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3…etc. 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 2-4 and 7-10 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.
As to claims 2, 4, 7-10, applicant recites the phrase “...generally...” which is a relative term which render the claims indefinite. The term "generally" is not defined by the claim(s), the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and is therefore rejected to accordingly under 35 USC 112b.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Bauer et al (3,672,495).
As to claim 1, Bauer discloses a tray (tray 1) for large-size semiconductor integrated circuits (semiconductor disk 16) that comprises: one or a plurality of pockets (as shown in Figure 4, the tray comprises two pockets compartment 7) for accommodating large-size semiconductor integrated circuits; wherein a rounded recess (13) having a circular outline (as shown in Figure 7) is formed on the inner bottom surface of each of the pockets (Figure 7).
As to claim 2, Bauer further discloses the circular outline is generally concentric with the center of each of the pockets (as shown in Figure 7, the rounded recess 13 having at circular outline at the center of each compartments 7).
As to claims 3-4, Bauer further discloses the a rounded recess having a circular outline (annular collar 20) is formed on the opposite side of the inner bottom surface of each of the pockets (as shown in Figure 4 and 5, the opposite side of the inner bottom surface of each pockets 7 further comprises a rounded recess form by the annular collar), and the circular outline (annular collar 20) on the opposite side is generally concentric with the center of each of the pockets (Figure 4).
As to claim 5, Bauer further discloses the rounded recess (13) is comprised of a spherical dome having a predetermined radius of curvature (the rounded recess 13 is in the shape of a shallow circular dished portion, which have a radius of curvature as shown in Figure 4)
As to claims 6-7 and 10, Bauer further discloses the tray has protruding portions (the ledge 5 that extend laterally from longitudinal side walls (4) of the tray and each of the protruding portions has a generally rectangular shape (as shown in Figure 10 of Bauer, the ledge 5 extend laterally from the longitudinal sidewalls are in the shape of rectangular shape) and the protruding portion (ledge 5) are arranged at positions which are predetermined distance away from the longitudinal side end of the tray (which is the width of the ledge 5)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer et al ((3,672,495).
As to claim 8-9, Bauer further discloses the protruding portion has a generally rectangular shape, but does not disclose each of the protruding portions has a generally trapezoidal shape or generally arcuate shape. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protrusion portions of Bauer with a generally trapezoidal shape or generally arcuate shape because the selection of the specific shape of the ledge such as the rectangular shape as disclosed by Bauer or as claimed would have been an obvious matter of design choice inasmuch as the resultant structures will work equally well.
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or prior art(s) disclosed by the Examiner (in the attached PTO-892 form).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUN HOI CHEUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5702. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM-5:30PM.
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, Orlando E Aviles can be reached at (571)270-5531. 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.
/CHUN HOI CHEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736