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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “another stencil printing process” and “another stencil mask” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 10 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 10 recites the limitation "the solder bumps" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Inoue et al. (US2002/0166886A1) (hereafter Inoue).
With respect to claim 1, Inoue teaches a stencil mask for printing a fluid material onto a substrate (the underlined portions are merely intended use), wherein the stencil mask comprises: a stencil member (2) comprising: at least one printing region each having an array of apertures (6) that allow the fluid material to flow therethrough and deposit onto the substrate (1); and a blocking (the solid region between apertures 6) region configured to prevent the fluid material from flowing therethrough; and a supporting member attached (8a/8b/8c) to the stencil member and configured to, when the stencil mask is placed on the substrate, contact the substrate and create a gap between the stencil member and the substrate (figures 8-14 and 18; and paragraphs 28-32). Since the stencil of Inoue possesses all of the claimed structural elements, it is the examiner’s position that the stencil of Inoue is intrinsically capable of being used with a fluid.
With respect to claim 2, Inoue teaches wherein the at least one printing region (broadest reasonable interpretation) is at a peripheral position of the stencil member (figures 10-13); and/or wherein the blocking region is at a central position (broadest reasonable interpretation) of the stencil member (figures 10-13); and/or wherein the supporting member comprises a plurality of support bars or support pins (figures 10-13; and paragraphs 28 and 31).
With respect to claim 3, the stencil of Inoue possesses all of the claimed structural elements (figures 10-13; and paragraphs 28 and 31). When the examiner has found a substantially similar product as in the applied prior art, the burden of proof is shifted to applicant to establish that their product is patentably distinct and not the examiner to show the same process as making. In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685 and In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324. When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). When the reference teaches a product that appears to be the same as, or an obvious variant of, the product set forth in a product-by-process claim although produced by a different process. See In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP § 2113.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Becker et al. (US2011/0259218A1) (hereafter Becker).
With respect to claim 1, Becker teaches a stencil mask for printing a fluid material onto a substrate (the underlined portions are merely intended use), wherein the stencil mask comprises: a stencil member (2) comprising: at least one printing region each having an array of apertures (7) that allow the fluid material (102) to flow therethrough and deposit onto the substrate (103) (figures 1-2; and paragraphs 3, 28, and 67-69); and a blocking (the solid region between apertures 7) region configured to prevent the fluid material (102) from flowing therethrough (figures 1-2; and paragraphs 3, 28, and 67-69); and a supporting member attached (5/9) to the stencil member and configured to, when the stencil mask is placed on the substrate, contact the substrate and create a gap between the stencil member and the substrate (figures 1-2; and paragraphs 67-69).
With respect to claim 2, Becker teaches wherein the at least one printing region (broadest reasonable interpretation) is at a peripheral position of the stencil member (figures 1-2); and/or wherein the blocking region is at a central position (broadest reasonable interpretation) of the stencil member (figures 1-2); and/or wherein the supporting member comprises a plurality of support bars or support pins (figures 1-2).
With respect to claim 3, the stencil of Becker possesses all of the claimed structural elements (figures 1-2; and paragraphs 3, 28, and 67-69). When the examiner has found a substantially similar product as in the applied prior art, the burden of proof is shifted to applicant to establish that their product is patentably distinct and not the examiner to show the same process as making. In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685 and In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324. When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). When the reference teaches a product that appears to be the same as, or an obvious variant of, the product set forth in a product-by-process claim although produced by a different process. See In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP § 2113.
With respect to claim 4, Becker teaches a stencil printing method, comprising: providing a substrate (103), wherein the substrate comprises at least one printing area; providing a stencil mask of claim 1; placing the stencil mask (2) on the substrate to create a gap between the stencil member and the substrate with the supporting member (5/9) and align the at least one the printing region with the at least one printing area, respectively (figures 1-2; and paragraphs 3, 28, and 67-69); and depositing a fluid material onto the substrate through the at least one printing region such that the fluid material flows through the at least one array of apertures onto the at least one printing area (figures 1-2; and paragraphs 3, 28, and 67-69).
With respect to claim 5, Becker teaches after depositing a fluid material onto the substrate, the method further comprising: removing the stencil mask from the substrate (paragraphs 28 and 47).
With respect to claim 6, Becker teaches wherein the at least one printing area is at a peripheral position (broadest reasonable interpretation) of the substrate, and the at least one printing region is at a peripheral position (broadest reasonable interpretation) of the stencil member (figures 1-2).
With respect to claim 7, Becker teaches wherein the blocking region is at a central (broadest reasonable interpretation) of the stencil member (figures 1-2).
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.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Konto et al. (JP-2010205996A) (hereafter Konto).
With respect to claim 8, Becker does not teach wherein the substrate further comprises solder bumps, and the solder bumps are formed using another stencil printing process with another stencil mask.
However, Konto teaches wherein the substrate further comprises solder bumps (12), and the solder bumps are formed (broadest reasonable interpretation) using another stencil (second screen mask 17/23) printing process (broadest reasonable interpretation) with another stencil mask (broadest reasonable interpretation) (figures; and machine translation).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to utilize a second stencil as taught by Konto in the process of Becker in order to from a layered solder bumps.
With respect to claim 9, Konto teaches wherein the solder bumps in the printing region are deposited with the fluid material (paste) that flows through the at least one array of apertures (figures; and machine translation).
With respect to claim 10, Konto teaches that the fluid material comprises flux (16a/16b).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KILEY SHAWN STONER whose telephone number is (571)272-1183. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday.
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 on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KILEY S STONER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
