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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 8-10 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gonzalez (US 2017/0170037).
Claim 8: a housing (FIG. 3A, 41);
a stage (20a/20/30) comprising:
one or more first sensors configured to detect a presence of a first die container of a first type on the stage,
one or more second sensors configured to detect a presence of a second die container of a second type on the stage, and
one or more third sensors configured to detect a presence of a third die container of a third type on the stage ("one or more solar carrying pods 20" (paragraph [0033])) in FIG. 3B (20a/20b/20c/etc.) require one or more 20a/20/30, including a third 20a/20/30; paragraphs [0035]/[0041]; para. [0043]/[0045]/[0065] for three sensors (“one or more sensors (not shown)”) for three 20a/20/30 (above)); and
an elevator configured to move one or more portions of the stage within the housing (43);
Claim 9: wherein the stage comprises a plurality of portions ("one or more solar carrying pods 20" (paragraph [0033])) in FIG. 3B (20a/20b/20c/etc.) require one or more 20a/20/30, including a third 20a/20/30; paragraphs [0035]/[0041]);
Claim 10: wherein the plurality of portions comprises:
a first portion configured to support the first die container, and
a second portion configured to support the second die container (FIG. 3B);
Claim 13: wherein the second portion is configured to support the third die container (each portion may support the other die container; intended use; MPEP 2115);
Claim 14: wherein the plurality of portions further comprises a third portion configured to support the third die container ("one or more solar carrying pods 20" (paragraph [0033])) in FIG. 3B (20a/20b/20c/etc.) require one or more 20a/20/30, including a third 20a/20/30; paragraphs [0035]/[0041]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 and 8-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6-9 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,261,069 (“USPN”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the current application are broader than USPN and one or more sensors includes a third sensor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 17 (method claim) overcomes the prior art since it requires selectively moving one or more portions of the stage based on the die container being correctly positioned on the stage and based on a die container type of the die container in combination with the other claim limitations. Claims 18-20 depend on Claim 17.
The prior art of record does not disclose this combination of limitations. For example, Gonzalez discloses stage 30, however, Gonzalez does not disclose selectively moving one or more portions of stage 30 based on the die container being correctly positioned on stage 30 and based on a die container type of the die container in combination with the other claim limitations. Similarly, other prior references do not disclose all the limitations of the independent claim. Therefore, the claims are allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 6-7, 11-12, and 15-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 6-7 are dependent on Claim 1 that is rejected under nonstatutory double patenting.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose the following in combination with the other claim limitations.
Claim 11: wherein the elevator is configured to move the first portion based on the presence of the first die container;
Claim 12: wherein the elevator is configured to move the first portion and the second portion based on the presence of the second die container;
Claim 15: wherein the third portion is greater in area than the second portion, and the second portion is greater in area than the first portion; and
Claim 16: wherein the second portion is greater in area than the first portion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2019/0206709 discloses stage 20.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gerald McClain whose telephone number is (571)272-7803. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and at gerald.mcclain@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03 (II)).
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272-7097. 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.
/Gerald McClain/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights