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 § 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 1-9 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a calculation part configured to “input a printing condition to a prediction model” in line 7 (emphasis added). Then, in line 12, the claim recites “the printing condition including” multiple options. This seems contradictory to the “input” step of “a” printing condition. It is not clear if the input step is meant to include all of the options for the printing conditions, or if only one can be chosen from the list. For the purposes of examination, the latter will be assumed,
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Martinek et al. (Materials 2022, 15, 4734). regarding claim 1, Martinek et al. disclose “a printing result prediction device configured to predict a volume of solder paste printed by a printer onto a substrate (penultimate sentence on page 13), the printer printing the solder paste by filling the solder paste into a stencil aperture of a stencil disposed on the substrate (fifth sentence in Section 1), the device comprising: a calculation part configured to input a printing condition to a prediction model (penultimate sentence on page 13) trained by machine learning (abstract), and predict a volume of solder paste printed by the stencil aperture of the stencil in a next printing using the input printing condition (penultimate sentence on page 13 and sentence bridging pages 13 and 14), the printing condition including a printing parameter of an operation of the printer when printing (penultimate sentence on page 13).” Regarding claim 2, Martinek et al. further disclose “wherein the prediction model is a model trained using a neural network or random forests (first sentence of section 4).” Regarding claim 3, Martinek et al. further disclose “wherein the substrate used to print includes a pad on which solder paste is printed by the stencil aperture (second and fifth sentences of Section 1).” Regarding the remainder of the claim, only that which is optional is recited; therefore, no structure is recited which defines over Martinek et al. Regarding claims 4-7, only that which is optional is recited; therefore, no structure is recited which defines over Martinek et al. Regarding claim 8, Martinek et al. further disclose “an acquisition part configured to acquire volume information of a volume of solder paste printed by the stencil aperture of the stencil in a previous printing using the stencil (last paragraph on page 5: Examiner interprets whatever was used to inspect the solder paste deposits to be the recited ‘acquisition part’), the printing condition including the volume information of the volume of the solder paste printed in the previous printing (last paragraph on page 5: this is implicit in the training of the model), and a printing sequence indicating a number of uses of the stencil used to print (last paragraph on page 5: this is implicit in the training of the model).”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinek et al. in view of Gong et al. (US 2020/0383212). Regarding claim 9, Martinek et al. disclose “a printing system (fifth sentence in Section 1), comprising: the device according to claim 8 (see the rejection of claim 8 above); the printer (fifth sentence in Section 1); and an inspection machine configured to detect the volume of the printed solder paste (last paragraph on page 5: Examiner interprets whatever was used to inspect the solder paste deposits to get the volume deposited to be the recited inspection machine), the acquisition part acquiring the volume information of the volume of the solder paste printed in the previous printing from the inspection machine (last paragraph on page 5).” Martinek et al. fail to disclose “the calculation part determining the printing parameter for the next printing based on the predicted volume of the solder paste, the printer performing the next printing by an operation indicated by the printing parameter for the next printing determined by the calculation part.” However, Gong et al. disclose a similar system wherein, based upon a measured printed volume of solder paste in a prior printing (paragraph 23, step S208), the printing parameters for the next printing are changed to improve print quality and yield (step s212, paragraph 29). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Martinek et al. in accordance with Gong et al. in order to improve the print quality and yield.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 9:30AM-6:30PM, First Fridays: 9:30AM-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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights