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.
Claim 12 is 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.
Claim 12 recites “a user”. It is unclear if this is intended to be the same user as in claim 1 or a different one. For examination purposes, it is presumed to be the same user, i.e. --the user--.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chan (KR100895291, with reference to translation).
Claim 1: Chan discloses an installation tool for installing a wire bonding tool on a wire bonding system (intended use, see below), the installation tool comprising: a body portion (100, 102, 104) configured to be held by a user of the installation tool (page 2); and a gripping portion (106) configured to hold a wire bonding tool such that the user can engage the wire bonding tool in an aperture of a transducer of the wire bonding system while the wire bonding tool is held by the installation tool (intended use).
Regarding the above, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, “installing a wire bonding tool on a wire bonding system” and “hold a wire bonding tool such that the user can engage the wire bonding tool in an aperture of a transducer of the wire bonding system while the wire bonding tool is held by the installation tool” pertain to the intended use of the tool. The Chan tool is presumed capable of gripping and holding a wire bonding tool as claimed.
Claim 2: The installation tool is a spring-based installation tool (using spring 220).
Claim 3: The body portion includes (i) a fixed portion (102) and (ii) a sliding portion (100/104) that is configured to move with respect to the fixed portion (e.g. page 2, noting that the movement of one portion with respect to the other is relative such that either might be “fixed” or “sliding”).
Claim 4: Movement of the sliding portion with respect to the fixed portion operates to hold the [held object] by the gripping portion, and to release the wire bonding tool from the gripping portion (e.g. page 2). As noted above, specific use with a wire bonding tool pertains to the intended use of the tool and does not limit its structure.
Claim 5: Movement of the sliding portion with respect to the fixed portion operates to compress, and decompress, a spring portion (220) housed within the body portion (evident from the overall construction of the tool).
Claim 6: The spring portion is connected to the fixed portion at a connecting surface (210) and is connected to the sliding portion at a connecting tab (212).
Claim 7: The installation tool further comprises a coupling portion (200), the coupling portion coupling the gripping portion to the fixed portion (102 - necessary for the hook to move relative to the body portion).
Claim 8: The coupling portion is unitary with the gripping portion (the portion 200 is bent to provide the hook - page 4).
Claim 11: The limitation “engagement of the wire bonding tool in the aperture biases the wire bonding tool in a predetermined orientation within the aperture” does not limit the structure of the claimed tool per se and pertains only to the installation of the wire bonding tool into the aperture.
Claim 12: The limitation “the wire bonding tool is biased in the predetermined orientation when a user releases the installation tool while the installation tool continues to hold the wire bonding tool, and while the wire bonding tool is engaged in the aperture” does not limit the structure of the claimed tool per se and pertains only to the installation of the wire bonding tool into the aperture. The tool is presumed capable of holding the wire bonding tool depending on various factors beyond the purview of the claims.
Claims 13-14: The gripping portion includes a hook 106, which can also be considered a claw, for holding the wire bonding tool.
Claim 15: The limitation “the wire bonding tool is a capillary tool” does not limit the structure of the claimed tool per se and pertains only to the article worked upon. See MPEP 2115.
Claim 16: The limitation “installing the wire bonding tool using the installation tool results in the application of a force towards the transducer” does not limit the structure of the claimed tool per se and pertains only to the installation of the wire bonding tool into the aperture. The tool is presumed capable of performing in this manner depending on various factors beyond the purview of the claims.
Claim 17: The limitation “the force provided results in a back bias position” does not limit the structure of the claimed tool per se and pertains only to the installation of the wire bonding tool into the aperture.
Claim 18: The installation tool is configured to hang from the transducer via the wire bonding tool when the user releases the installation tool (this would depend on the wire bonding tool and how the installation tool engages it).
Claim 19: The installation tool is configured to provide a force with respect to the transducer, the force resulting from a weight of the installation tool as the installation tools hangs via the wire bonding tool, the force being applied in connection with bias contact points of the wire bonding tool (the installation tool inherently has mass and would be capable of applying the force via its weight, for example). The4 limitation does not necessarily limit the structure of the claimed tool per se.
Claim 20: The installation tool includes a spring portion (220) housed within the body portion, the spring portion being connected to a fixed portion (102), wherein the installation tool further includes a coupling portion (200), the coupling portion coupling the gripping portion (106) to the fixed portion (necessary for the hook to move relative to the body portion).
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.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan in view of Osbourne (U.S. Patent 9,816,659) or Shnol (U.S. Patent 9,181,666).
Claim 9: Chan discloses an installation tool substantially as claimed except for wherein the gripping portion is removable from coupling portion. However, Osbourne teaches that a gripping portion (hook 501) may be removably coupled to a coupling portion (column 5, lines 42-43). Alternatively, Shnol teaches that a gripping portion (claw 11) may be removably coupled to a coupling portion (column 6, lines 8-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the gripping portion removable from coupling portion for the purpose of replaceability in the event of wear or damage, for example. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the gripping portion removable from coupling portion since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 17, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the unitary or separable nature of the coupling.
Claim 10: The gripping portion is removable via one or more of a threaded connection (as with Osboure above), or friction (as with Shnol).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references disclose similar spring-based gripping tools.
6315340
1851126
1168115
0987173
WO0135896
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P TRAVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3218. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Sunil K. Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/Matthew P Travers/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726