CTNF 19/322,387 CTNF 96848 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-36 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6 recites “the support portion is made of a soft or hard material.” This does not further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, as every solid material can be considered “soft or hard.” Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 2, 4, and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. 2004/0206661 to Gardiner et al. (hereinafter, “Gardiner”) in view of KR-20060039661 to Hong (hereinafter, “Hong”) . Regarding claim 1 , Gardiner discloses a tray structure (tray 10, Figs. 1-2), comprising: one or more pockets (pocket 70, Figs. 1-2), each pocket (pocket 70) configured to receive a package assembly having a substrate or to receive a substrate (chip 1000, para. [0045]), each pocket (pocket 70) comprising: a plurality of captures (elements 84, 85, Figs. 1-2) configured to be in contact with side surfaces of the substrate (para. [0045]); and a support portion (annotated Fig. 2 below) configured to support the substrate (para. [0045]), wherein the captures (elements 84, 85) and the support portion (annotated Fig. 2) form a receiving space (space between elements 84, 85) to receive at least a part of the substrate (para. [0045]), the captures are configured to be in contact with parts of the side surfaces of the substrate above lower edge portions thereof (see Fig. 2; para. [0045]), and the support portion (annotated Fig. 2) is configured to be in contact with a part of a bottom surface of the substrate (para. [0045]). PNG media_image1.png 403 583 media_image1.png Greyscale Gardiner Annotated Figure 2 Gardiner does not expressly disclose the support portion is configured to not be in contact with an outer edge portion of the bottom surface of the substrate. Hong teaches a similar tray structure (Figs. 1-3) comprising one or more pockets (recesses 21, Figs. 1, 3) each configured to receive a package assembly having a substrate (panel P, Fig. 3). Hong teaches a plurality of captures (wall 21A, Fig. 3) configured to be in contact with side surfaces of the substrate (panel P, see Fig. 3). Hong teaches a support portion (bottom surface 21B, Fig. 3) configured to support the substrate (panel P). Hong teaches a groove (groove 22, Fig. 3) positioned where the captures (wall 21A) meet the support portion (bottom surface 21B) such that an outer edge portion (annotated Fig. 3 below) of the bottom surface of the substrate (panel P) does not contact the support portion (bottom surface 21B, see Fig. 3). Hong teaches that this arrangement prevents the formation of curved portions in the tray, which reduces movement of the substrate within the pocket (pp. 3-4 of attached translation). PNG media_image2.png 296 481 media_image2.png Greyscale Hong Annotated Figure 3 It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tray structure of Gardiner to add a groove around the support portion at the base of the captures such that the outer edge portion of the bottom surface of the substrate does not contact the support portion as taught by Hong for the purpose of preventing the formation of curved portions in the tray and reducing movement of the substrate, as recognized by Hong ( see pp. 3-4). Regarding claim 2 , Gardiner as modified by Hong already includes the captures (Gardiner, elements 84, 85) comprise inner walls (Gardiner, surfaces of elements 84, 85 facing pocket 70) configured to be in contact with the side surfaces of the substrate (Gardiner, para. [0045]), and lower edges of the inner walls (Hong, annotated Fig. 3) are higher than a surface of the support portion (Hong, bottom surface 21B, Fig. 3) that supports the substrate ( see Hong Fig. 3). Regarding claim 4 , Gardiner as modified by Hong already includes the captures (Gardiner, elements 84, 85) and the support portion (Gardiner, annotated Fig. 2) are configured such that when the substrate (Gardiner, para. [0045]; Hong, panel P) moves along a surface of the support portion (Gardiner, annotated Fig. 2) that supports the substrate (Gardiner, para. [0045]; Hong, panel P) in the receiving space (Gardiner, space between elements 84, 85) until one of the captures (Gardiner, elements 84, 85) comes into contact with a first side surface of the substrate (Hong, see Fig. 3) and another of the captures is separated from a second side surface of the substrate (Hong, see Fig. 3) opposite to the first side surface, the support portion (Hong, bottom surface 21B) is still not in contact with the outer edge portion (Hong, annotated Fig. 3) of the bottom surface of the substrate (Hong, see Fig. 3). Regarding claim 6 , Gardiner further discloses the support portion (annotated Fig. 2) is made of a soft or hard material (para. [0041]). Regarding claim 7 , Gardiner further discloses the support portion (annotated Fig. 2) is: a support frame (annotated Fig. 2) configured to be in contact with a peripheral portion of the bottom surface of the substrate to support the substrate (para. [0045]); or a support floor configured to be in contact with substantially the entire bottom surface of the substrate to support the substrate. Regarding claim 8 , Gardiner further discloses the support frame (annotated Fig. 2) comprises a plurality of projection portions (annotated Fig. 2) which are disposed along a circumferential direction ( see Fig. 2) and separated from the plurality of captures (elements 84, 85) along the circumferential direction ( see Fig. 2). Regarding claim 9 , Gardiner further discloses the tray structure (tray 10) further comprises: a mounting frame (annotated Fig. 2) on which the plurality of captures (elements 84, 85) and the support portion (annotated Fig. 2) are mounted ( see Fig. 2). Regarding claim 10 , Gardiner discloses a tray system ( see Figs. 18-19; para. [0002]). Gardiner as modified by Hong already includes one or more tray structures according to claim 1 ( see rejection of claim 1 above). Regarding claim 11 , Gardiner further discloses the tray structures (tray 10) are stacked on top of one another ( see Figs. 18-19; para. [0002]) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 3 and 5 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. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 3 , neither Gardiner nor Hong disclose an outer edge of the support contact surface is located closer to a center of the receiving space than the inner walls. It would not have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gardiner and/or Hong to have such an arrangement. Regarding claim 5 , neither Gardiner nor Hong disclose an outer surface of the support portion away from the receiving space is in the shape of a slope. It would not have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gardiner and/or Hong to have such an arrangement . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : KR-1020230060342 to Lee discloses a tray structure comprising a plurality of captures and a support portion that form a receiving pocket for a substrate ( see Figs. 1-2). U.S. Pat. 5,890,599 to Murphy discloses a tray structure comprising a plurality of captures and a support portion that support a substrate ( see Figs. 1-20). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E. PARKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6014. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:30 pm EST. 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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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. /LAURA E. PARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733 Application/Control Number: 19/322,387 Page 2 Art Unit: 3733 Application/Control Number: 19/322,387 Page 3 Art Unit: 3733 Application/Control Number: 19/322,387 Page 4 Art Unit: 3733 Application/Control Number: 19/322,387 Page 5 Art Unit: 3733
Prosecution Insights