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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 7, 15-17, 19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kledzik et al. (US 2003/0165051 A1) in view of Häcker Automation GmbH, “Pin Transfer of Solder Paste and Pick + Place of SMD components on PCB” and Wischoffer ““0201 Parts (0.25 Mm X 0.125 Mm, 008004”) “Arrived on the Scene in Order to Make the Technology for Future Device Terminals Possible”.
Regarding claim 1, Kledzik teaches:
A method for printed circuit board (PCB) assembly (PCBA) stacking comprising:
picking and placing, using a pick and place machine, a first surface mount technology (SMT) components [BGA devices (139) figures 10, 11, and 16] on the bottom PCB [circuit board (140); 0065, 0072];
picking and placing, using a pick and place machine, a middle PCB [carrier (141)] directly on the bottom PCB [0072];
picking and placing, using a pick and place machine, the top PCB [carrier (149)] on the middle PCB [0072];
picking and placing SMT, using a pick and place machine, component [BGA device (153)] on the top PCB to form a stacked assembly [0072]; and
reflowing the stacked assembly in a single reflow [0072].
Kledzik does not teach:
depositing, using a pick and place machine, a first solder paste on a bottom PCB;
after depositing a first solder paste on the bottom PCB, depositing, using the pick and place machine, a second solder paste on the middle PCB;
after depositing the second solder paste and before picking and placing a top PCB on the middle PCB, inspecting, using an automated optical inspection system (AOI), a respective placement of the first SMT components on the bottom PCB, a respective placement of the middle PCB on the bottom PCB, and the first SMT components to check for a missing component of the first SMT components;
after depositing a second solder paste on the middle PCB, depositing, using the pick and place machine, a third solder paste on the top PCB;
picking and placing second SMT components on the top PCB;
using the same pick and place machine for all picking, placing, and depositing steps; and
after picking and placing the second SMT components on the top PCB, inspecting, using the AOI, a respective placement for each respective PCB and the second SMT components for a missing component of the second SMT components,
wherein at least one of the first SMT components or the second SMT components have a 0201 package size or have a package size smaller than the 0201 package size.
Concerning the use of the same pick and place machine:
Hacker teaches a single device that pin transfers solder paste onto a PCB and picks and places different components on the transferred paste and the smallest size component is (0.3 X 0.3)mm, i.e. smaller than 0201; watch video.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the Hacker pick and place machine since it can apply paste and pick and place components of various sizes/types in the applied paste. Additionally, one would have been motivated to use this machine in order to save space or to do small batches. In doing so, the same pick and place machine would be used for all picking, placing, and depositing steps.
Concerning the 0201/008004 package size:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate and/or replace the SMT components of Kledzik with the 0201/008004 packages or smaller in order to further miniaturize the PCBA or manufacture a desired assembly.
Concerning the number of components:
While Kledzik only teaches placing a single BGA device on carrier (149) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to place as many BGA devices/0201/008004 packages as needed in order to assemble a desired array/PCBA, minus any unexpected results. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to place any number of components/electrical members in any desired configuration in order to make a desired PCBA, minus any unexpected results.
Concerning the AOI :
Wischoffer teaches using AOI to inspect for missing parts, placing deviations, and upside-down parts and that inspection should be done between each process; pages 6 and 22-26.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate an AOI system into the prior PCBA process, the process based on the combination of Kledzik and Hacker, and to inspect the process at any point, including after the depositing of any solder paste and the placing of any component/element, in order to identify missing components/elements.
Regarding claim 15, all of the limitations of this claim are addressed in the rejection of claim 1. Note that claim 15 now mirrors claim 1 in that the same pick and place machine is required for all transferring and stacking steps.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Kledzik does not teach:
depaneling the stacked assembly to form stacked assembly PCBs.
The examiner notes that depaneling is a well-known process in the art since it is an art specific term and depaneling devices can be readily bought. Since the applicant did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice, the examiner notes that the above well-known fact in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to manufacture a panel circuit board assembly that can be singulated/depaneled into individual Kledzik PCBs after the reflow step in order to increase production.
Regarding claims 3, 7, 17, 19, 21, and 22, these claims are addressed in the rejections of claims 1 or 15.
Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kledzik et al. (US 2003/0165051 A1) in view of Häcker Automation GmbH, “Pin Transfer of Solder Paste and Pick + Place of SMD components on PCB” and Wischoffer ““0201 Parts (0.25 Mm X 0.125 Mm, 008004”) “Arrived on the Scene in Order to Make the Technology for Future Device Terminals Possible”, as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and in further view of Amir et al. (US 2019/0221456 A1)
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Kledzik does not teach:
wherein depositing the first solder paste, the second solder paste, and the third solder paste are done with a gang pin transfer process using the pick and place device machine; or
wherein the transferring solder paste on the bottom PCB, the transferring solder paste on the middle bottom PCB, and the transferring solder paste on the top PCB is done using a gang pin transfer device in cooperation with the pick and place device machine.
Amir teaches using paste transfer tool (201) having a plurality pins (205) so that paste is applied to a plurality of pads simultaneously; figures 2E-G.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Amir tool into the prior art process in order to speed up the paste transferring step.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues,
“The Office asserts that Hacker teaches that "the same pick and place machine would be used for all picking, placing, and depositing steps" under the subheading "Concerning the use of the same pick and place machine." However, the Office does not assert that the depositing solder paste elements of claim 1 are taught by Hacker, nor does Hacker teach these elements. Hacker does not show depositing first solder paste on a bottom PCB, depositing second solder paste on a middle PCB, and depositing third solder paste on a top PCB. Accordingly, the Office does not cite any reference, including Kledzik, Hacker, and Wischoffer, as teaching these elements of claim 1, nor does the Office provide any rationale that would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cited references to perform these elements of claim 1. Thus, the Office has not established a prima facie case of obviousness for claim 1.”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Kledzik is relied upon to teach the stacking of components and using a single reflow to join them, while Hacker is used to teach that a single pick and place machine can be used to pin transfer solder paste and pick and place components. As for motivation, the examiner notes that it was given in the rejection.
The applicant argues,
“Further, the Office asserts that, for claim 15, "all of the limitations of this claim are addressed in the rejection of claim 1." (Office Action, p. 7). Claim 15 as amended recites "transferring, using a pick and place machine, solder paste onto a bottom PCB," "after the intermediate stack is formed, transferring, using the pick and place machine, solder paste onto the middle PCB," and "after the top PCB is stacked on the intermediate stack, transferring, using the pick and place machine, solder paste onto the top PCB." At least these elements of claim 15 are not addressed in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 15 is incomplete for at least the same reasons.”
The examiner notes that the following claim 1 limitations correspond to the claim 15 limitations noted by the applicant above, “depositing, using a pick and place machine, a first solder paste on a bottom PCB”; ln 3, “depositing, using a pick and place machine, a second solder paste on the middle PCB”; ln 8-9, and “depositing, using a pick and place machine, a third solder paste on a bottom PCB”; ln 17-18. The examiner sees no difference between “depositing” and “transferring” nor does the originally filed disclosure make such a distinction. Thus, these limitations are addressed as stated by the examiner. If the applicant believes that there is a difference then the claims should include additional language to make them distinct.
The applicant argues,
“Combining the BGA systems described in Kledzik with depositing solder paste would disrupt the BGA systems. Depositing solder paste on or around BGA pads would serve to obstruct ball seating, impede proper contact between the ball and pad, and disrupt the ability of the balls to melt and form reliable electrical connections. BGA systems specifically avoid depositing solder paste by relying on the solder balls to provide predetermined solder volume, shape, and distribution. Thus, depositing solder paste is structurally and functionally incompatible with the systems described in Kledzik.”
This is simply a matter of opinion since using solder paste to bond solder balls to solder pads is mundane and well-practiced in the art; see previously cited references US 2019/0221456 or US 2011/0031605.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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