DETAILED ACTION
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: support configured to support in claims 1, 10, and 16.
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 § 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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 10, and 16 limitation “support configured to support” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claims. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 1-20 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.
The term “intense” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “intense” is not defined by the claim, 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. Thus, one cannot ascertain the degree to which the light must be irradiated to be intense.
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 1-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Ishimoto et al. (US 2021/0043478 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ishimoto discloses:
A light soldering device [apparatus (1a); figures 1-3], comprising:
a chamber [chamber (2)];
a support [stage (3)] inside the chamber, the support configured to support an object, the object including a substrate and an electronic component on the substrate [see figure 2];
a plurality of light irradiators [lamps (4)] above the support, inside the chamber, the plurality of light irradiators configured to irradiate light to the object on the support; and
a reflective member [upper reflector (5)] on the plurality of light irradiators inside the chamber, the reflective member configured to reflect the light from the plurality of light irradiators toward the object, wherein at least one of the plurality of light irradiators comprises a first region that is configured to emit less light than other light irradiators from among the plurality of light irradiators [filaments (4a) are adjusted to different optimal lengths and thus the shorter filaments emit less light; 0044 and figure 3].
Regarding claim 2, Ishimoto discloses:
wherein each of the plurality of light irradiators extends in a first direction, and the plurality of light irradiators are spaced apart from each other in a second direction intersecting the first direction [see figure 3].
Regarding claim 3, Ishimoto discloses:
wherein the plurality of light irradiators comprises a first light irradiator [the second lamp from the top in figure 3], a second light irradiator [the third lamp from the top], and a third light irradiator [the fourth lamp from the top] sequentially arranged in the second direction, and the first light irradiator and the third light irradiator include the first region [see figure 3].
Regarding claim 4, Ishimoto discloses:
wherein opposite sides of the reflective member in the second direction are bent toward the support [second portion (52); figure 2].
Regarding claim 8, Ishimoto discloses:
wherein the first region comprises a light scattering surface [the glass/casing of the filament will inherently scatter a portion of the light since it is not perfectly transparent].
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. (US 2008/0219650 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses:
A light soldering device [heating device (100); figures 19-22], comprising:
a chamber [chamber (300)];
a support [guard ring (5)] inside the chamber, the support configured to support an object, the object including a substrate and an electronic component on the substrate;
a plurality of light irradiators [lamps (1); 0344] above the support, inside the chamber, the plurality of light irradiators configured to irradiate light to the object on the support; and
a reflective member [reflecting mirror (2); 0345] on the plurality of light irradiators inside the chamber, the reflective member configured to reflect the light from the plurality of light irradiators toward the object,
wherein at least one of the plurality of light irradiators comprises a first region [light diffusion area (111); 0347 and figures 22a-b] that is configured to emit less light than other light irradiators from among the plurality of light irradiators [the size of the light diffusion area changes between lamps so some emit less light than others; figure 21].
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki discloses:
wherein each of the plurality of light irradiators extends in a first direction, and the plurality of light irradiators are spaced apart from each other in a second direction intersecting the first direction [see figure 21].
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki discloses:
wherein the plurality of light irradiators comprises a first light irradiator [third vertical lamp from the left in figure 21], a second light irradiator [fourth vertical lamp from the left in figure 21], and a third light irradiator [fifth vertical lamp from the left in figure 21] sequentially arranged in the second direction, and the first light irradiator and the third light irradiator include the first region [see figure 21].
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki discloses:
wherein the at least one of the plurality of light irradiators comprises the first region further comprises a second region and a third region on respective sides of the first region in the first direction, respectively, and the first region is configured to emit less light than each of the second region and the third region [all the lamps with area (111) have non-diffusion regions on either side that emit more light; figure 21].
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki discloses:
wherein a length of the second region in the first direction and a length of the third region in the first direction are substantially the same [see figure 21].
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki discloses:
wherein the first region comprises a light filter [since not all of the light passes through area (111) then it is filtered].
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki discloses:
wherein the first region comprises a light scattering surface [since not all of the light passes through area (111) then it is scattered].
Claims 1-6, 9-13, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Rao et al. (US 2016/0234881 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rao discloses:
A light soldering device [device in figures 1-4], comprising:
a chamber [chamber (35)];
a support [substrate support (11)] inside the chamber, the support configured to support an object, the object including a substrate and an electronic component on the substrate;
a plurality of light irradiators [arrangement of lamps (70); 0027] above the support, inside the chamber, the plurality of light irradiators configured to irradiate light to the object on the support; and
a reflective member [reflector (78); 0030] on the plurality of light irradiators inside the chamber, the reflective member configured to reflect the light from the plurality of light irradiators toward the object,
wherein at least one of the plurality of light irradiators comprises a first region [center lamp (80) with filament (77) or other segmented lamps (80) that have filaments (83, 86) all have regions without filaments and thus these filament regions emit less light than linear lamps (90)] that is configured to emit less light than other light irradiators from among the plurality of light irradiators.
Regarding claim 2, Rao discloses:
wherein each of the plurality of light irradiators extends in a first direction, and the plurality of light irradiators are spaced apart from each other in a second direction intersecting the first direction [see figure 3A].
Regarding claim 3, Rao discloses:
wherein the plurality of light irradiators comprises a first light irradiator [the center lamp], a second light irradiator [linear lamp (90) to the right], and a third light irradiator [segmented lamp (802)] sequentially arranged in the second direction, and the first light irradiator and the third light irradiator include the first region [the center lamp and segmented lamp (802) have the segmented filaments].
Regarding claim 4, Rao discloses:
wherein opposite sides of the reflective member in the second direction are bent toward the support [reflector structure (75) is part reflector (78) and bends towards the substrate support].
Regarding claim 5, Rao discloses:
wherein the at least one of the plurality of light irradiators comprises the first region further comprises a second region and a third region on respective sides of the first region in the first direction, respectively, and
the first region is configured to emit less light than each of the second region and the third region [in this case segmented lamp (801) comprises the filament-less region; i.e. the first region, between filaments (83, 86); i.e. the second and third regions; figure 3A].
Regarding claim 6, Rao discloses:
wherein a length of the second region in the first direction and a length of the third region in the first direction are substantially the same [filaments (83, 86) are the same length; figure 3A].
Regarding claim 9, Rao discloses:
wherein the length of the first region in the first direction is 10% or more and 30% or less of the length of the at least one of the plurality of light irradiators, which comprises the first region, in the first direction [the filament-less region is about 25% of the length the segmented lamp (801); figure 3A].
Regarding claim 10, Rao discloses:
A light soldering device [device in figures 1-4], comprising:
a chamber [chamber (35)];
a support [substrate support (11)] inside the chamber, the support configured to support an object, the object including a substrate and an electronic component on the substrate;
at least one light irradiator [arrangement of lamps (70); 0027] above the support inside the chamber, the at least one light irradiator extending in a first direction and configured to irradiate light to the object on the support [see figure 3A];
a first reflective member [reflector (78); 0030] on the at least one light irradiator inside the chamber, the first reflective member configured to reflect the light from the at least one light irradiator toward the object [see figure 1]; and
at least one second reflective member [reflective structures (75); figure 1] on an inner surface of the first reflective member, the inner surface facing towards the support inside the chamber, and the at least one second reflective member is configured to reflect the light from the at least one light irradiator towards opposite sides of the object in the first direction [the reflective structures reflect light along the lamps to opposite sides of the substrate support].
Regarding claim 11, Rao discloses:
wherein the at least one second reflective member comprises a plurality of second reflective members [reflective structures (75)] spaced apart in the first direction [in this case the first direction is left to right in figure 1 so that the width of each lamp extends in the first direction, and the reflective structures reflect light as claimed and are spaced apart in this first direction].
Regarding claim 12, Rao discloses:
wherein the at least one second reflective member comprises a plurality of second reflective members [reflective structures (75)] spaced apart in a second direction intersecting the first direction with the at least one light irradiator interposed between the plurality of second reflective members [reflective structures (75) are between the lamps; figure 1].
Regarding claim 13, Rao discloses:
wherein the at least one light irradiator comprises a plurality of light irradiators [arrangement of lamps (70)] spaced apart in a second direction intersecting the first direction, and the at least one second reflective member comprises a plurality of second reflective members [reflective structures (75)] between the plurality of light irradiators [reflective structures (75) are between the lamps].
Regarding claim 16, Rao discloses:
A light soldering device [device in figures 1-4], comprising:
a chamber [chamber (35)];
a support [substrate support (11)] inside the chamber, the support configured to support an object, the object including a substrate and an electronic component on the substrate;
a plurality of light irradiators [arrangement of lamps (70); 0027] extending in a first direction and spaced apart from each other in a second direction intersecting the first direction, the plurality of light irradiators being above the support inside the chamber, and configured to irradiate light to the object on the support [see figures 1 and 3A] ;
a first reflective member [reflector (78); 0030] on the plurality of light irradiators inside the chamber, the first reflective member configured to reflect the light from the plurality of light irradiators toward the object; and
a plurality of second reflective members [reflective structures (75)] on an inner surface of the first reflective member, the plurality of second reflective members facing towards the support inside the chamber, and the plurality of second reflective members configured to reflect the light from the plurality of light irradiators towards opposite sides of the object in the first direction [the reflective structures reflect light along the lamps to opposite sides of the substrate support],
wherein the plurality of light irradiators comprises a first light irradiator [the center lamp; figure 3A], a second light irradiator [linear lamp (90)], and a third light irradiator [segmented lamp (802)] sequentially arranged in the second direction,
wherein each of the first light irradiator and the third light irradiator comprises a first region [filaments (65, 83, 86) emit less light than the filament of the linear lamp] that is configured to emit less light than the second light irradiator, and
wherein each of the plurality of second reflective members comprises at least one second-first reflective member between the first light irradiator and the second light irradiator and at least one second-second reflective member between the second light irradiator and the third light irradiator [reflective structures (75) are between the lamps].
Regarding claim 17, Rao discloses:
wherein the first light irradiator and the third light irradiator further comprise a second region and a third region respectively on opposite sides of the first region in the first direction, and the first region is configured to emit less light than each of the second region and the third region [in this case the first and third irradiators are segmented lamps (802) and (804) which have filament-less regions; i.e. first region, between filaments (83, 86); i.e. the second and third regions, while the linear lamp therebetween is the second irradiator and thus the filament-less region emits less light; figure 3A].
Regarding claim 18, Rao discloses:
wherein opposite sides of the first reflective member in the second direction are bent toward the support [reflector structure (75) is part reflector (78) and bends towards the substrate support].
Regarding claim 20, this claim is functional language:
wherein the plurality of light irradiators are configured to irradiate intense pulsed light to the object.
Concerning any claimed results, materials, and/or functions:
Since the prior art apparatus, i.e. the apparatus based on the prior art reference above, is structurally identical to the claimed apparatus, it is the examiner’s position that the prior art apparatus is capable of achieving any claimed function with any claimed material to achieve any claimed result; such as being capable of irradiating pulsed light. This reasoning applies to any claim below where functional language, material worked upon, and/or a result is claimed.
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.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2008/0219650 A1), as applied to claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 9, Ishimoto does not teach:
wherein the length of the first region in the first direction is 10% or more and 30% or less of the length of the at least one of the plurality of light irradiators, which comprises the first region, in the first direction.
However, the lamp at the very edge of area (111) in figure 21 has a diffusion area that is 37.5% of the length of the bulb. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the length of the diffusion area on the bulb any length including that claimed in order to achieve a desired area (111) or a desired pattern, minus any unexpected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, 15, and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure; see PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS J GAMINO whose telephone number is (571)270-5826. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 5712723458. 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.
/CARLOS J GAMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights