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 nozzle having more than one “channel fluidly coupling the inlet to the outlet” as recited in claims 1 and 20 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 24 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 24 recites “an interior surface of the shield” while claim 1 recites “the shield includes an interior surface”. It is unclear if these are the same or not. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as being the same.
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, 2, 4, 9, 20-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in view of Mehkri et al. (US 2018/0126475 A1), Bel-tec “INCHROMEREN”, Trussler et al. (GB 2 130 253 A), and Ciniglio et al. (US 2009/0224028 A1).
Regarding claim 1, AAPA teaches:
A soldering assembly [soldering assembly (100, 200; figures 1a-2)] comprising:
at least one nozzle [nozzle (104, 204)] for directing solder during a soldering operation, the at least one nozzle comprising:
an inlet for receiving a supply of solder;
an outlet for dispensing solder therefrom; and
at least one channel fluidly coupling the inlet to the outlet [the nozzles inherently have an inlet, outlet, and channel in order to function as a nozzle];
wherein the at least one nozzle comprises stainless steel or titanium, provided so as to define the at least one channel [nozzles are made of stainless steel; pg. 2, ln. 20]; and
a shield assembly, the shield assembly comprising:
a shield [unlabeled shield in figure 2], configured to surround the nozzle [see figure 2], wherein the shield includes an interior surface around an interior region and an outside surface opposite the interior surface [the shield intrinsically has interior and exterior surfaces since the nozzle is protruding therethrough], and
a conduit [conditioner/conduit (213)] placed outside of the shield and configured to project a de-bridging fluid to an area proximate to the outlet of the at least one nozzle [see figure 2],
the conduit having a first end configured to receive the de-bridging fluid and a second end configured to project the de-bridging fluid to the area proximate to the outlet of the at least one nozzle, the second end being substantially smaller, [and] the second end of the conduit located above a top end of the shield [conditioner (213); 0004 and figure 2].
AAPA does not teach:
wherein the at least one nozzle comprises a plurality of stacked layers;
the conduit is integrally formed with an outside the shield;
the second end being substantially flattened;
the conduit comprising a plurality of stacked layers of material; and
wherein the at least one nozzle is at least partially diffusion coated with chromium carbide so as to protect the stacked layers from corrosion and such that the at least one nozzle is non-wettable.
Concerning the plurality of stacked layers:
Mehkri teaches 3D printing pallet (100), which is used in a wave soldering process, because 3D printing not only reduces costs in that it enables customization of components without the need for tooling or other component-specific manufacturing equipment, but also enables creation of complex geometries and features that are either not possible or cost prohibitive with other manufacturing techniques [0036-0038].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the AAPA nozzle, shield, conduit, or any portion of the soldering assemblies, using 3D printing because 3D printing not only reduces costs in that it enables customization of components without the need for tooling or other component-specific manufacturing equipment, but also enables creation of complex geometries and features that are either not possible or cost prohibitive with other manufacturing techniques. In doing so, the nozzle/conditioner/assemblies would have stainless steel layers. Note that 3D printing of metals is well-known in the art since such machines can be purchased. 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.
Concerning the integrally forming of the conduit on the outside of the shield:
Since the AAPA nozzle is being modified one would keep the conduit on the outside of the shield.
Ciniglio teaches a first soldering assembly comprising nozzle (50), nose (60), lip (62), and conduits (68, 70), wherein the nose and lip are like a shield to which the conduits are attached to the exterior thereof and the conduits have a rectangular/flat shape; figures 3-5, and a second soldering assembly comprising nozzle (216), cover/shield (220), and tube/conduit (224), wherein the cover surrounds the nozzle and the tube is in contact with the inside of the cover; figure 11.
Since Ciniglio teaches the conduit can be contacting the inside or the outside of the shield, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to place the conditioner/conduit in contact with the outside of the shield. In doing so, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the shield and conditioner could be manufactured integrally, using 3D printing or other means, since they are in contact and this would reduce the number of individual components. Furthermore, the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice; MPEP 2144.04 (V)(B).
Concerning the flattened conduit:
While AAPA teaches the conditioner does have a substantially smaller second end it is unclear if it is flat [note the applicant could uphold their duty of candor and state if it is or not]. As noted above, the Ciniglio conduit shown in figures 3-5 is rectangular and flat.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the end any shape including flat like that of Ciniglio in order to project the fluid in a desired stream, to mirror the shape of the nozzle outlet, or to control the velocity of the stream. Note that the top of the rectangle is flattened when compared to a cylindrical tube.
Concerning the chromium diffusion coating:
Bel-tec teaches inchromizing, which is the process the applicant uses to form the claimed coating, wherein the coating provides wear and corrosion resistance, increases tool life, has anti-adhesive properties, has low coefficient of friction, and can be used on all ferrous metals.
Trussler et al. (GB 2 130 253 A) teaches providing a chromium carbide layer on steel tools or other articles for use with molten solder in order to provide a non-wettable surface, to prevent solder contamination, and to increase hardness and wear resistance; pg. 1, ln. 24-42, 63-69.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to coat the prior art solder nozzle by chromium diffusion/inchromizing in order to provide a non-wettable surface, to prevent solder contamination, to increase hardness and wear resistance, and/or to increase tool life.
Regarding claim 2, while the method of depositing the layers is not structural limiting this claim is still addressed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, AAPA teaches:
wherein the soldering assembly further comprises a nozzle plate [plate (102)].
Regarding claim 9, AAPA teaches:
A system for soldering a component, comprising a supply of liquid solder; a soldering assembly according to claim 1; and a pump apparatus, configured to pump solder from the solder supply to the at least one nozzle of the soldering assembly [since the solder is pumped there is inherently a pump and since solder is being supplied there is inherently a solder supply; pg. 1, ln. 20-34].
Regarding claims 20-22, the limitations of these claims are addressed in the rejection of claims 1 and 2 above.
Regarding claim 23, AAPA teaches:
wherein the interior region comprises a space between the nozzle and an interior surface of the shield [there is inherently space between the interior of the shield and the exterior of the nozzle since the solder flows back into this space].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in view of Mehkri et al. (US 2018/0126475 A1), Bel-tec “INCHROMEREN”, and Trussler et al. (GB 2 130 253 A), and Ciniglio et al. (US 2009/0224028 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ciniglio (US 2013/0306711 A1).
Regarding claim 7, AAPA does not teach:
wherein the nozzle has at least one guiding portion configured to guide solder dispensed from the outlet.
Ciniglio ‘711 teaches soldering nozzle (1) comprising groove (3) for mitigating de-wetting; 0119 and figure 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Ciniglio ‘711 groove into the AAPA nozzle in order mitigate de-wetting.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/27/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues,
“Regarding "the nozzle having more than one channel," 37 C.F.R. 1.81(a) states "the applicant for a patent is required to furnish a drawing of the invention where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented." FIG. 7 of the drawings clearly shows a channel 408. The Office Action has not established that a person of ordinary skill in the art would require a drawing to understand how the channel 408 could be constructed as multiple channels. In fact, given the applicant's disclosure involving additive manufacturing, a person of ordinary skill in the art would clearly understand a multiple-channel embodiment given the example of FIG. 7. This objection should be withdrawn.”
Note this is not an omission that more than one nozzle is conventional in the art nor has the applicant provided evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly understand what is meant by this. Furthermore, since the applicant is claiming this feature a drawing is necessary for understanding the invention.
The applicant argues,
“However, as illustrated in FIGS. 3-5 and described in Cinglio '028, the conduits 68, 70 for nitrogen gas are positioned immediately outside the nose 60 and the lip 62, while the nose 60 and the lip 62 appear to at least partially direct the solder and are therefore functionally part of the solder nozzle. Because the structure and function of the nose 60 and the lip 62 are different than that of the shield of the alleged AAPA, the comparison to the shield is incorrect, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated by the arrangement of Cinglio '028 to make a conduit integral to the shield in the alleged AAPA.”
Note that the examiner stated that the nose and lip are like a shield because they are attached to and shield lower chamber (52). This is relevant since conduits (68, 70) are placed directly on the nose and lip. Even so, AAPA shows the conduit can be outside the chamber while Ciniglio figure 11 shows the conduit be placed directly against the inside of cover/shield (220), thus whether the conduit is outside or inside the shield is a known option. Since one is 3D printing the nozzle one of ordinary skill in the art would easily recognize that a conduit in contact with the shield, as taught by Ciniglio, is much easier to produce because they share a wall. Note that the applicant has not addressed either of these two particular teachings in their arguments.
The applicant argues,
“Furthermore, the Office Action alleges that "Cinglio teaches the conduit can be contacting the inside or the outside of the shield." See Office Action, p. 7. However, claim 1 recites that the conduit is integrally formed with the outside surface of the shield. Cinglio '028 describes that the conduits 68, 70 are "mounted" on the nose 60 and the lip. Therefore, the Office Action does not even allege that Cinglio '028 teaches the element of claim 1 for which it is cited, and Cinglio '028 does not in fact teach such integral forming. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the combination of the alleged AAPA and Cinglio '028 to teach or suggest the conduit recited in claim 1.”
The examiner is not relying upon Ciniglio to teach any of the components being integral since that limitation naturally flows from the nozzle being 3D printed.
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