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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/21/26 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
As noted previously, the elected claims are drawn to an apparatus. "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (MPEP 2114). For instance, “for a multi-wave soldering operation” (claim 1) refers to intended use, which does not structurally contribute to the apparatus. Furthermore, examiner notes that, “inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” (MPEP 2115). For example, “parts to be soldered” are workpiece materials which do not structurally limit the claimed soldering apparatus.
The subjective term effective flow rate is not defined by the claim, the original specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and so one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the limitation. In response, Applicant previously argued that while such a flow rate may depend on aspects of the de-bridging gas outlet, it is well established that “breadth is not indefiniteness”. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “effective flow rate” can be assessed by observing whether de-bridging has occurred and thus, the claim language establishes a clear boundary. In accordance with this interpretation, “effective flow rate” is taken to mean any flow rate which achieves observable debridging of solder. Examiner notes that particular degree/extent of debridging is not required by the claim as long as change is observed; the claim is open to any percent (e.g. 50%, 70% or even 20%) of debridging or removal of solder.
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, 7-8, 10, 12 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tardoskegyi (US 3705457).
Regarding claim 1, Tardoskegyi discloses a soldering nozzle 40 for directing solder during a multi-wave soldering operation (figs. 1-3; col. 1, lines 32-56), the soldering nozzle 40 comprising: a solder channel having a solder inlet for receiving a supply of solder and a solder outlet for dispensing the solder 16 therefrom and to receive a plurality of parts (components on circuit boards 65) to be soldered; and a de-bridging gas channel having a de-bridging gas inlet and a de-bridging gas outlet configured to direct de-bridging gas (inert gas) between a plurality of soldered parts after they exit the solder outlet (fig. 3; col. 3, lines 47-58; col. 4, lines 20-25), wherein the solder channel and the de-bridging gas channel are integrally formed as part of the nozzle body 40 (fig. 3). The gas outlet of gas nozzle 50 is configured to direct any suitable inert gas (e.g. nitrogen) to circuit boards 65 exiting the solder outlet (see fig. 3 diagram below).
PNG
media_image1.png
356
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Tardoskegyi discloses a solder pot 10 comprising: a soldering nozzle 40 for directing solder during a multi-wave soldering operation (figs. 1-3), the soldering nozzle comprising a solder channel having a solder inlet for receiving a supply of solder and a solder outlet for dispensing solder and to receive a plurality of parts (components on circuit boards 65) to be soldered; a de-bridging gas channel having a de-bridging gas inlet and a de-bridging gas outlet configured to direct de-bridging gas (inert gas) between a plurality of soldered components/parts after they exit the solder outlet (fig. 3; col. 3, lines 47-58; col. 4, lines 20-25); a cover plate 41, wherein the cover plate incorporates an opening to expose the solder outlet and the de-bridging gas outlet is coupled to the cover plate, wherein a supply of de-bridging gas is coupled to the gas outlet (see diagram above). The gas outlet of gas nozzle 50 is configured to direct an inert, debridging gas (e.g. nitrogen) to cause observable change in debridging solder from between the plurality of parts (plurality of components on circuit board 65) by excluding air/oxygen and inhibiting oxidation (col. 2, lines 28-32; col. 4, lines 50-52; col. 5, lines 1-4) and this meets “effective” gas flow rate (see Claim Interpretation above).
As to claim 8, Tardoskegyi shows that the soldering nozzle and the de-bridging gas outlet are arranged in a fixed spatial arrangement (fig. 3).
As to claim 10, Tardoskegyi shows the de-bridging gas outlet is provided proximal to an edge of the opening of the cover plate (figs. 2-3). Examiner notes that “proximal” is relatively broad term and not limited by any distance.
Regarding claim 12, Tardoskegyi discloses a system for soldering a component, comprising a supply of liquidus solder 30; a solder pot 10 according to claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above); and a pump 23 configured to pump solder from the solder supply to the at least one nozzle of the soldering assembly (fig. 2; col. 3, lines 30-46).
As to claim 19, Tardoskegyi shows that the soldering nozzle comprises a housing comprising an interior side wall 43, wherein the interior side wall defines the solder outlet; and the housing defines the de-bridging gas channel (fig. 3).
As to claim 20, Tardoskegyi shows that the soldering outlet comprises an opening has a first orientation which dispenses the solder in a soldering direction and wherein the de-bridging gas outlet has a second orientation which directs the de-bridging gas in the soldering direction (fig. 3).
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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tardoskegyi as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Heine (WO 02/04161, of record).
As to claims 4-5, Tardoskegyi does not disclose the plurality of gas outlets arranged along a side of the solder outlet. However, such arrangement is known in the art. Heine (also drawn to wave soldering apparatus) discloses a soldering nozzle comprising a solder outlet 3 for dispensing solder to PCB part 12 and a plurality of inertizing gas outlets 10 (row of holes) arranged along a first side of the solder outlet (fig. 1; pg. 6). Heine teaches that such gas outlets setup improves distribution of the inert gas to ensure that no solder region is deprived of inert effects and oxidation is avoided (pg. 4, lines 15-29). Directing inert gas between a plurality of pins/connectors of components/parts on the PCB meets directing gas between plurality of soldered parts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to arrange the plurality of gas outlets along a first side of the solder outlet where the soldered boards exit in Tardoskegyi because it would improve distribution of the inert gas to ensure that no soldered region is deprived of inert effects and oxidation is avoided, as suggested by Heine.
Claims 7-8, 10 and 12 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tardoskegyi (US 3705457) in view of Elliott et al. (US 5228614, “Elliott”).
Regarding claim 7, Tardoskegyi discloses a solder pot 10 comprising: a soldering nozzle 40 for directing solder during a multi-wave soldering operation (figs. 1-3), the soldering nozzle comprising a solder channel having a solder inlet for receiving a supply of solder and a solder outlet for dispensing solder and to receive a plurality of parts (mounted on circuit board 65) to be soldered; a de-bridging gas channel having a de-bridging gas inlet and a de-bridging gas outlet configured to direct de-bridging gas (inert gas) between a plurality of soldered parts after they exit the solder outlet (fig. 3; col. 3, lines 47-58; col. 4, lines 20-25); a cover plate 41, wherein the cover plate incorporates an opening to expose the solder outlet and the de-bridging gas outlet is coupled to the cover plate, wherein a supply of de-bridging gas is coupled to the gas outlet (see diagram above). The gas outlet of gas nozzle 50 is configured to direct an inert, debridging gas (e.g. nitrogen) to de-bridge solder from between the boards/parts 65 by excluding air/oxygen and inhibiting oxidation (col. 2, lines 28-32; col. 4, lines 50-52; col. 5, lines 1-4).
Concerning “effective” gas flow rate
Tardoskegyi discloses that gas nozzle 50 is provided with a control valve 58 (fig. 2); the flow rate of the inert gas can be readily adapted to the operating conditions by suitable manipulation of valve 58 (col. 5, lines 1-4). Similarly, Elliott (also drawn to wave soldering apparatus) teaches a gas nozzle 38 similar to Tardoskegyi, wherein debriding gas is supplied through a gas line 44 and valve 46 (figs. 1-2), which permits the flow rate to be varied so that it is sufficient to remove icicles, bridges and the like from the undersurface of the parts being soldered (col. 3, lines 42-48). One skilled in the art would understand that the valve enables to set any desired gas flow rate, for instance 2-10 L/min. Elliott teaches that inert gas such as nitrogen removes icicles or bridges and assists to prevent dross formation on the surface of the solder (col. 4, lines 50-55). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to set a suitable gas flow rate, including 2-10 L/min, by adjusting the valve in the gas nozzle of Tardoskegyi. An artisan of ordinary skill would be motivated to do so because the inert gas flow should be sufficient to remove icicles or bridges and prevent dross/oxide formation on the surface of the solder, as suggested by Elliott. Examiner also points out that a particular flow rate value is an operational feature that does not structurally limit the gas channel (see Claim Interpretation above).
As to claim 8, Tardoskegyi shows that the soldering nozzle and the de-bridging gas outlet are arranged in a fixed spatial arrangement (fig. 3).
As to claim 10, Tardoskegyi shows the de-bridging gas outlet is provided proximal to an edge of the opening of the cover plate (figs. 2-3). Examiner also notes that “proximal” is relatively broad term and not limited by any distance.
Regarding claim 12, Tardoskegyi discloses a system for soldering a component, comprising a supply of liquidus solder 30; a solder pot 10 according to claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above); and a pump 23 configured to pump solder from the solder supply to the at least one nozzle of the soldering assembly (fig. 2; col. 3, lines 30-46).
Claims 6, 11, 15-18 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tardoskegyi OR Tardoskegyi & Elliott as applied above, and in view of Applicant’s specification (of record).
Regarding claims 6 and 11, Tardoskegyi discloses a solder pot 10 comprising at least one nozzle 40 (see rejection of claim 1 above), the at least one nozzle being provided such that liquidus solder and de-bridging nitrogen gas can be supplied to the nozzle (figs. 6-8). Tardoskegyi is silent as to a solder plate. However, Applicant’s instant specification discloses that in multi-wave soldering, typical solder pot assembly 100 includes a solder plate 102 having nozzles 104, provided on the solder plate, to which liquidus solder is pumped (see Background- [0004], fig. 1a). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a solder plate and at least one nozzle on the solder plate in the apparatus of Tardoskegyi since such arrangement is conventional in the wave soldering art. Hence, modified solder pot in Tardoskegyi includes at least one soldering nozzle provided on a solder plate such that liquidus solder and de-bridging gas can be supplied to the nozzle.
Regarding claim 15, Tardoskegyi discloses a system for soldering a component, comprising a supply of liquidus solder 30; a solder pot 10 according to claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above); and a pump 23 configured to pump solder from the solder supply to the at least one nozzle of the soldering assembly (fig. 2; col. 3, lines 30-46).
As to claims 16-17, Tardoskegyi discloses the supply of de-bridging gas (inert- nitrogen gas) and gas outlet are configured to direct inert gas to cause observable debridging of the solder from between the boards/parts exiting downstream of the nozzle and this meets “effective” gas flow rate.
Regarding claim 18, Tardoskegyi discloses a system for soldering a component, comprising: a supply of liquid solder 30; a solder pot 10 comprising: a soldering nozzle 40 for directing solder during a multi-wave soldering operation (figs. 1-3), the soldering nozzle comprising a solder channel having a solder inlet for receiving a supply of solder and a solder outlet for dispensing solder and to receive a plurality of parts (components on PCB 65) to be soldered; a de-bridging gas channel having a de-bridging gas inlet and a de-bridging gas outlet configured to direct de-bridging gas (inert gas) between a plurality of soldered parts after they exit the solder outlet (fig. 3; col. 3, lines 47-58; col. 4, lines 20-25); wherein a supply of de-bridging gas is coupled to the gas outlet (see diagram above). The gas outlet of gas nozzle 50 is configured to direct an inert, debridging gas (e.g. nitrogen) at a flow rate effective to de-bridge solder from between the components/parts mounted on the PCB 65 by excluding air/oxygen and inhibiting oxidation (col. 2, lines 28-32; col. 4, lines 50-52; col. 5, lines 1-4).
Tardoskegyi is silent as to a solder plate. However, Applicant’s original specification discloses that in multi-wave soldering, typical solder pot assembly 100 includes a solder plate 102 having nozzles 104, provided on the solder plate, to which liquidus solder is pumped (Background- [0004], fig. 1a). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a solder plate and at least one nozzle on the solder plate in the apparatus of Tardoskegyi since such arrangement is conventional in the wave soldering art. Hence, the modified solder pot in Tardoskegyi includes at least one soldering nozzle provided on a solder plate such that liquidus solder and de-bridging gas can be supplied to the nozzle.
As to claim 24, Applicant’s specification teaches known solder pot 100 (figs. 1a-1b) comprising: soldering nozzles 104 for directing solder during a wave soldering operation, the soldering nozzle comprising a solder channel having a solder inlet for receiving a supply of solder and a solder outlet for dispensing solder and to receive a plurality of parts (components mounted on the PCB) to be soldered [0004], wherein the PCB leads/connectors are lowered/inserted into the solder outlet for soldering [0004, 0026]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to solder parts by inserting through the solder outlet in the apparatus of Tardoskegyi since such technique is conventional in the wave soldering art.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tardoskegyi as applied to claim 7 above, and in view of Elliott et al. (US 5228614, “Elliott”).
As to claim 21, Examiner first points out that a particular flow rate is an operational feature that does not structurally limit the gas channel. Tardoskegyi discloses that gas nozzle 50 is provided with a control valve 58 (fig. 2); the flow rate of the inert gas can be readily adapted to the operating conditions by suitable manipulation of valve 58 (col. 5, lines 1-4). Similarly, Elliott (also drawn to wave soldering apparatus) teaches a gas nozzle 38 similar to Tardoskegyi, wherein debriding gas is supplied through a gas line 44 and valve 46 (figs. 1-2), which permits the flow rate to be varied so that it is sufficient to remove icicles, bridges and the like from the undersurface of the parts being soldered (col. 3, lines 42-48). One skilled in the art would understand that the valve enables to set any desired gas flow rate, including 2-10 L/min. Elliott teaches that inert gas such as nitrogen removes icicles or bridges and assists to prevent dross formation on the surface of the solder (col. 4, lines 50-55). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to set a desired gas flow rate, including 2-10 L/min, by adjusting the valve in the gas nozzle of Tardoskegyi. An artisan of ordinary skill would be motivated to do so because the inert gas flow should be sufficient to remove icicles or bridges and prevent dross/oxide formation on the surface of the solder, as suggested by Elliott.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tardoskegyi as applied to claim 7 above, and in view of Heine (WO 02/04161, of record) & Becker et al. (US 6913183, “Becker”).
As to claim 22, Tardoskegyi does not disclose the soldering pot comprising a plurality of gas channels having respective inlets & outlets directing gas toward the parts and individually controlling each gas channel. However, such arrangement is known in the art. Heine (also drawn to wave soldering apparatus) discloses a soldering nozzle comprising a solder outlet 3 for dispensing solder to PCB part 12 and a plurality of inertizing gas outlets 10 (row of holes) arranged along a first side of the solder outlet (fig. 1; pg. 6). Heine teaches that such gas outlets setup improves distribution of the inert gas to ensure that no solder region is deprived of inert effects and oxidation is avoided (pg. 4, lines 15-29). Similarly, Becker (also drawn to selective wave soldering) aims to provide enhanced debridging of solder from the underside of the board (col. 2, lines 1-9). Becker teaches a gas nozzle 24 (gas knife) comprising a plurality of gas channels 28 and segments 38 associated with its own pressure regulator connected to a controller 36, which controls the temperature and/or gas flow rate through different segments in response to different types of circuit boards (figs. 2-3; col. 3, lines 36-42; col. 4, lines 1-13). This meets each de-bridging gas channel of the plurality of de-bridging gas channels configured to be individually controlled to selectively jet the de-bridging gas from the respective de-bridging gas outlet.
Given teachings of Heine & Becker, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a plurality of gas channels having respective inlets & outlets and to incorporate a controller for individually controlling each gas channel in the soldering pot of Tardoskegyi because doing so would improve distribution of the inert gas to ensure that no soldered region is deprived and oxidation is avoided (as suggested by Heine), and adjust the gas flow rate through each of different gas channels in response to different types of circuit boards (as suggested by Becker). Thus, Tardoskegyi as modified by Heine & Becker discloses the soldering pot further comprising a plurality of de-bridging gas channels; each de-bridging gas channel of the plurality of de-bridging gas channels having a respective de-bridging gas inlet and a respective de-bridging gas outlet located relative to the soldering nozzle such that the de-bridging gas is directed toward the plurality of soldered parts after they exit the solder outlet; and each de-bridging gas channel is configured to be individually controlled to selectively jet the de-bridging gas from the respective outlet.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s admitted prior art (referring as ‘AAPA’, see specification) in view of Tardoskegyi (US 3705457).
As to claim 24, AAPA discloses a solder pot 100 (figs. 1a-1b) comprising: soldering nozzles 104 for directing solder during a multi-wave soldering operation, the soldering nozzle comprising a solder channel having a solder inlet for receiving a supply of solder and a solder outlet for dispensing solder and to receive a plurality of parts (components mounted on the PCB) to be soldered [0004], wherein the PCB leads/connectors are lowered/inserted into the solder outlet as is conventional in multi-wave soldering [0004, 0026]; a cover plate (removed in fig. 1a) with openings to expose the solder outlet and nozzles 104 [0004].
AAPA does not mention a supply of de-bridging gas coupled to a de-bridging gas channel having a gas inlet and a gas outlet configured to direct de-bridging gas between a plurality of soldered parts after they exit the solder outlet. However, such gas supply is known in the art. Tardoskegyi (also drawn to wave soldering) teaches a solder pot 10 comprising a nozzle assembly 40, a de-bridging gas channel having a de-bridging gas inlet and a de-bridging gas outlet configured to direct de-bridging gas (inert gas) between a plurality of soldered parts (mounted on the PCB 65) after they exit the solder outlet (fig. 3; col. 3, lines 47-58; col. 4, lines 20-25); a cover plate 41, wherein the cover plate incorporates an opening to expose the solder outlet and the de-bridging gas outlet is coupled to the cover plate, wherein a supply of de-bridging gas is coupled to the gas outlet (see diagram above). The gas outlet of gas nozzle 50 is configured to direct an inert, debridging gas (e.g. nitrogen) to de-bridge solder from between the parts/components (mounted on PCB 65) by excluding air/oxygen and inhibiting oxidation (col. 2, lines 28-32; col. 4, lines 50-52; col. 5, lines 1-4) and this meets “effective” gas flow rate (see Claim Interpretation above). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate an inert gas supply adjacent to the soldering nozzle in the apparatus of AAPA because doing so would enable to direct an inert, debridging gas (e.g. nitrogen) to de-bridge solder from between the parts on the PCB by excluding air/oxygen and inhibiting oxidation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23 and 26 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.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 7 and 18 have been considered but they are not persuasive for following reasons. Examiner also notes that claims 23 and 26 appear to be allowable.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues:
The Office Action does not provide any evidence that the solder channel and the de-bridging gas channel are integrally formed.
In response, examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the solder channel and the de-bridging gas channel are integrally formed by the nozzle body structure 40 (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Applicant argues:
Tardoskegyi also does not teach or suggest "a cover plate, wherein the cover plate incorporates an opening to expose the solder outlet, and wherein the de-bridging gas outlet is coupled to or incorporated into the cover plate." Although the Office Action asserts that Tardoskegyi's reference number 41 is a cover plate according to claim 7, as illustrated below, Tardoskegyi's reference number 41 are side plates which serve as lateral enclosures for nozzle assembly 40, and do not constitute a cover plate.
In accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with specification, examiner contends that side plate 41 is equivalent to “cover plate” because the plate covers/encloses at least portion of the nozzle assembly 40 (fig. 1). Examiner notes that claim does not specify or limit the structure of “cover plate” in any manner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVANG R PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3636. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of Applicant. If Applicant wishes to communicate via email, a written authorization form must be filed by Applicant: Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The form may be filed via the Patent Center and can be found using the document description Internet Communications, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms. In limited circumstances, the Applicant may make an oral authorization for Internet communication. See MPEP § 502.03.
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 Center. For more information, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For questions, technical issues or troubleshooting, please contact the Patent Electronic Business Center at ebc@uspto.gov or 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DEVANG R PATEL/
Primary Examiner, AU 1735
Prosecution Insights