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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “inspection part configured to inspect…” in claim 1, “information output configured to output…” in claims 1-10, 13-18, “production criterion determination part configured to determine…” in claims 11, 12, 19 and 20, .
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miwa et al. (JP2010125716) in view of Narita et al. (JP2019-206095).
With respect to claim 1, Miwa et al. teaches a printing process assistance system comprising a printing unit (30) configured to execute a printing process of printing a paste material onto a board (P, Paragraphs 0015, 0018, 0030, 0031), via openings in a mask (3, 28) by mobbing the paste material onto the mask a squeegee (27) in a state in which the mask overlies the board (P, Paragraphs 0015, 0019, 0024, 0025, 0026, 0028, 0044), and a cleaning process of cleaning the lower surface of the mask at a predetermined cleaning interval and a predetermined number of times (Paragraphs 0006, 0011-0013, 0017, 0026-0030, 0038-0042),
a controller (33) configured to control an operation in each of the printing process and the cleaning process (Paragraphs 0015, 0016, 0023, 0030-0036,0040),
an inspection part (31) configured to inspect a level of a smudge of the paste material on the board (P) subjected to the printing process (Paragraphs 0015, 0018, 0050), and
an information output configured to output, when a result of the inspection shows continual smudge occurrence (Figure 6), assistive information to reduce the smudge to a destination which is at least one of the controller (33) or notification part configure to notify an operator of information (Paragraphs 0032, 0035, 0037, 0046), wherein
the information output is configured to output, to the destination, information to increase a frequency of cleaning processes as the assistive information (Paragraphs 0006, 0044-0045).
However, Miwa et al. does not explicitly disclose a board which is supported by a plurality of backup pins. Narita et al. teaches a board (B) which is supported by a plurality of backup pins (P, Paragraphs 0023, Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the present invention was made to modify the invention taught by Miwa et al. to provide a plurality of backup pins that support a board as taught by Narita et al. for the purpose of providing the board with proper positioning and support between the clamps of a printer.
With respect to claim 2, the limitation, the information output is configured to determine appropriateness or inappropriateness of the frequency of cleaning processes on the basis of a smudge tendency, and output the assistive information to the destination when determining that the frequency is in appropriate, “configured to” is intended use, therefore Miwa et al. information output is capable of performing the intended function.
With respect to claim 9, Miwa et al. teaches the information output part is configured to determine appropriateness or inappropriateness of the frequency of cleaning processes on the basis of a smudge tendency in a printing process executed immediately before or substantially immediately before the cleaning process (Paragraphs 0043-0045).
With respect to claim 10, Miwa et al. teaches the information output part (Figure 6) is configured to determine appropriateness or inappropriateness of the frequency of cleaning processes on the basis of a smudge tendency in a printing process executed at a substantially middle point or thereafter in the cleaning interval (Paragraphs 0043-0045).
With respect to claim 13, the limitation, the information output is configured to output the assistive information to the destination on a plurality of occurrences of smudges each having a level exceeding a preset threshold in a predetermined number of cleaning cycles, “configured to” is intended use, therefore Miwa et al. information output is capable of performing the intended function.
With respect to claim 14, the limitation, wherein under definition of the assistive information as first assistive information, the information output is configured to output, to the destination, second assistive information to reduce the smudge and change criteria of the printing process when it is determined that the frequency of cleaning processes is appropriate, “configured to” is intended use, therefore Miwa et al. information output is capable of performing the intended function.
With respect to claim 17, the limitation, the information output is configured to determine appropriateness or inappropriateness of the frequency of cleaning processes on the basis of a smudge tendency in a printing process executed immediately before or substantially immediately before the cleaning process, “configured to” is intended use, therefore Miwa et al. information output is capable of performing the intended function.
With respect to claim 18, the limitation, the information output is configured to determine appropriateness or inappropriateness of the frequency of cleaning processes on the basis of a smudge tendency in a printing process executed at a substantially middle point or thereafter in the cleaning interval, “configured to” is intended use, therefore Miwa et al. information output is capable of performing the intended function.
4. Claim 11, 12, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miwa et al. (JP2010125716) in view of Narita et al. (JP2019-206095) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Mantani et al. (WO020188946).
With respect to claims 11 and 19, Miwa et al., as modified, teaches the claimed invention with the exception of a storage configured to accumulatively store production criteria for boards produced in past, the production criteria including criteria of the printing process and criteria of the cleaning process; and
a production criterion determination part configured to determine production criteria for a production target board before a start of a printing process for the production target board on the basis of production criteria for a board of the same type as a type of the production target board among the production criteria stored in the storage part, wherein
the printer is configured to start the printing process for the production target board on the basis of the production criteria determined by the production criterion determination part.
Mantani et al. teaches a storage (40) configured to accumulatively store production criteria for boards (6) produced in past, the production criteria including criteria of the printing process and criteria of the cleaning process; and
a production criterion determination part (43) configured to determine production criteria for a production target board before a start of a printing process for the production target board on the basis of production criteria for a board of the same type as a type of the production target board among the production criteria stored in the storage part (Paragraphs 0036-0050), wherein
the printer (30) is configured to start the printing process for the production target board on the basis of the production criteria determined by the production criterion determination part (Paragraphs 0006, 0011-0013, 0017, 0026-0030, 0038-0042).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the present invention was made to further modify the invention taught by Miwa et al., as modified, to provide a storage and a production criterion determination as taught by Mantani et al. for the purpose of properly storing information for further printing processes.
With respect to claims 12 and 20, Mantani et al. teaches a production criterion determination part (43) that configured to determine, on the basis of design information about boards, production criteria including criteria of the printing process and criteria of the cleaning process before a start of production of a production target board (Paragraphs 0035-50), wherein
the printer (30) is configured to start a printing process for the production target board on the basis of the production criteria determined by the production criterion determination part (Paragraphs 0006, 0011-0013, 0017, 0026-0030, 0038-0042).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8, 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.
With respect to claim 3, the prior art does not teach or render obvious the information output is configured to output the assistive information to the destination on a plurality of occurrences of smudges each having a level exceeding a preset threshold in a predetermined number of cleaning cycles.
With respect to claim 5, the prior art does not teach or render obvious wherein under definition of the assistive information as first assistive information, the information output part is configured to output, to the destination, second assistive information to reduce the smudge and change criteria of the printing process when it is determined that the frequency of cleaning processes is appropriate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARISSA LIANA FERGUSON SAMRETH whose telephone number is (571)272-2163. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m.-5 p.m.
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 571-271-2149. 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.
/Marissa Ferguson-Samreth/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/CHRISTOPHER E MAHONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852