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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1, 3, 6-9, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa (US 8728629 B2) in view of Watanabe (JP 2020040089 A), Lane (US 20210092854 A1), and Draper (US 4348263 A)
Claim 1. Kitagawa discloses a reflow melting system for reflow melting a metal coating on an electrical contact area of a terminal (reflow treatment by a laser on a terminal, col 7 lines 22-27), comprising:
a laser
Kiagawa does not disclose a laser head that form a plurality of molten metal points
a manipulator on which the laser head is mounted
a first image sensor mounted on the manipulator or the laser head, moving synchronously with the laser head, capturing an image of the melting metal coating in real time;
a second image sensor capturing an image of the melted metal coating; and
a remote control terminal in communication with the laser head and the manipulator, for automatically adjusting at least one working parameter of the laser head and at least one operating program of the manipulator and automatically varying a heating pattern during melting according to an image captured by the first and second image sensors, for optimizing the melting effect of the metal coating
Watanabe discloses a soldering method for portions between copper terminals comprising:
a laser head (laser soldering apparatus A, Fig. 1) for emitting laser light onto the metal
a manipulator on which the laser head is mounted (laser emission unit 1 is mounted on the lifting mechanism 22, Fig. 2);
a first image sensor mounted on the manipulator or the laser head (camera 40a, Fig. 1), moving synchronously with the laser head (camera is attached to the emission unit 1 which will move when the emission unit moves, Fig. 1, par. 22), capturing an image of the melting metal coating in real time (cameras can take pictures or videos of the soldering portion through the entire process, par. 41);
a second image sensor capturing an image of the melted metal
a remote control terminal in communication with the laser head
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kitagawa to incorporate the teachings of Watanabe and provide the laser on a movable head with cameras. Doing so would have the benefit of changing the irradiation energy of the laser beam if abnormality during the process was detected (par. 44, Watanabe).
Kitagawa in view of Watanabe does not disclose the control terminal adjusts at least one operating program of the manipulator.
Lane discloses a reel-to-reel laser scanner for forming circuitry (par. 11) wherein the vision system tracks the circuitry pattern and make calculations and send data to the laser scanners to make corrections/calibration on the fly (par. 228 and 249-251), wherein the corrections and calibration involve aligning the laser to the correct locations which involve moving the laser ablation module along a z-direction (par. 211).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kitagawa in view of Watanabe to incorporate the teachings of Lane and align the laser to the correct location by moving the lifting mechanism. Doing so would have the benefit of correctly moving the laser beam such that it aligns to the correct position when soldering (par. 228, Lane).
Kitagawa in view of Watanabe and Lane does not disclose a metal melting size precision of the plurality of molten metal points is controlled within 50 microns in diameter based on adjustments provided by the remote control terminal synchronously with the control of the laser parameters.
Kitagawa further discloses that the reflow treatment is a method capable of performing reflow in a specific area of an area corresponding to the beam spot of laser light (col 6, lines 58-65).
Draper discloses melting metal plated electrical contacts with laser beams that have a spot size of 34 microns (col 6, lines 30-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kitagawa in view of Watanabe and Lane to form metal points that is controlled within 50 microns in diameter based on control of the laser parameters. Kitagawa teaches that the reflow area corresponds to the diameter of the laser light and Draper teaches that it is known to one of ordinary skill in the art to use beams with a diameter of 34 microns for irradiating the surfaces of electrical contacts.
Claim 3. Kitagawa in view of Watanabe, Lane, and Draper discloses the reflow melting system according to claim 1, further comprising a laser controller communicated with the laser head for controlling the laser head (control unit 50 controls the laser beam, par. 16, Watanabe).
Claim 6. Kitagawa in view of Watanabe, Lane, and Draper discloses the reflow melting system according to claim 3, wherein the remote control terminal communicates with the manipulator and the laser controller for setting working parameters of the laser head and the operating parameters and programs of the manipulator (control unit 50 controls the laser beam, par. 16, Watanabe; and the prior art combined with Lane results in the controller also controlling the lifting mechanism to adjust the laser spot, par. 228 and 249-251, Lane).
Claim 7. Kitagawa in view of Watanabe, Lane, and Draper discloses the reflow melting system according to claim 1, wherein the remote control terminal is adjusting the working parameters of the laser head (images of the soldering is analyzed to determine if it is abnormal and if it was abnormal the irradiation energy is changed, par. 44, Watanabe) and the operating parameters of the manipulator in real time according to the image captured by the first image sensor, so as to optimize the working parameters of the laser head and the operating parameters of the manipulator and improve the melting effect of the metal coating (the vision system tracks the circuitry pattern and make calculations and send data to the laser scanners to make corrections/calibration on the fly, par. 228 and 249, Lane).
Claim 8. Kitagawa in view of Watanabe, Lane, and Draper discloses The reflow melting system according to claim 1, wherein the remote control terminal is adjusting the working parameters of the laser head (images of the soldering is analyzed to determine if it is abnormal and if it was abnormal the irradiation energy is changed, par. 44, Watanabe) and the operating parameters of the manipulator in
Claim 9. Kitagawa in view of Watanabe, Lane, and Draper does not disclose the reflow melting system according to claim 1, further comprising a negative pressure dust washing device for removing a vaporized coating metal by suction, so as to prevent the vaporized coating metal from cooling and condensing on the surface of the molten metal coating again.
Lane further discloses a reel-to-reel laser scanner for forming circuitry (par. 11) wherein suction nozzles to suck out the metal foil that is turned into plasma during the irradiation process (par. 210).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kitagawa in view of Watanabe, Lane, and Draper to incorporate the teachings of Lane and include a suction device. Doing so would have the benefit of removing the plasma from the machine (par. 210, Lane).
Claim 25. Kitagawa in view of Watanabe, Lane, and Draper discloses the reflow melting system according to claim 1, wherein the remote control terminal outputs high-definition pictures of the plurality of molten metal points on-line for monitoring and tracing quality records (images of the soldering is analyzed to determine if it is abnormal, par. 44, Watanabe).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa in view of Watanabe, Lane, and Draper as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kawakami (US 20110278267 A1).
Claim 4. Kitagawa in view of Watanabe, Lane, and Draper does not disclose the reflow melting system according to claim 3, further comprising a laser power box electrically connected with the laser head for supplying power to the laser head.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the laser source would require a power supply connected to it. For example, Kawakami discloses a roll to roll processing system with a laser scriber wherein the laser has a power source 51 (par. 73).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kitagawa in view of Watanabe, Lane, and Draper to incorporate the teachings of Kawakami and have a power supply connected to the laser source for the purpose of powering the laser.
Claim 5. Kitagawa in view of Watanabe, Lane, Draper, and Kawakami does not disclose the reflow melting system according to claim 4, wherein the laser controller, the laser power box and the laser head are integrated and installed on the manipulator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kitagawa in view of Watanabe, Lane, Draper, and Kawakami and integrate the laser controller, power supply, and head onto the gantry since it has been held that the mere integration of parts has no patentably significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965), MPEP 2144.04(V)(B).
10. Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa in view of Watanabe, Lane, and Draper as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Unrath (US 20190001442 A1).
Claim 10. Kitagawa in view of Watanabe, Lane, and Draper does not disclose the reflow melting system according to claim 9, further comprising a blowing protection device for spraying a compressed gas on the metal coating to remove dust on the metal coating.
Unrath discloses a laser processing apparatus wherein the irradiation generates dust and vapor (par. 304) wherein an air knife is used to blow compressed air at the worksurface the remove the dust and vapor particles (par. 304).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kitagawa in view of Watanabe, Lane, and Draper to incorporate the teachings of Unrath and use an air knife to remove dust generated during the melting process for the purpose of dislodging any settled vapor or debris (par. 304, Unrath).
Claim 11. Kitagawa in view of Watanabe, Lane, Draper, and Unrath discloses the reflow melting system according to claim 10, wherein the compressed gas is compressed air (compressed air-powered air knife, par. 304, Unrath) or compressed inert gas.
11. Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa in view of Watanabe, Lane, and Draper as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zediker (US 20160067827 A1).
Claim 12. Kitagawa in view of Watanabe, Lane, and Draper does not disclose the reflow melting system according to claim 1, further comprising a laser cooling device for cooling a laser pump in the laser head.
Zediker discloses a laser processing apparatus wherein the laser pump is cooled through active air cooling (par. 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kitagawa in view of Watanabe, Lane, and Draper to incorporate the teachings of Zediker and actively cool the laser pump with air to prevent it from overheating during operation.
Claim 13. Kitagawa in view of Watanabe, Lane, Draper, and Zediker discloses the reflow melting system according to claim 12, wherein the laser cooling device is a water cooling device, an air cooling device (active air cooling, par. 26, Zediker) or a water air mixed cooling device.
11. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa in view of Watanabe, Lane, and Draper as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou (CN 114749745 A)
Claim 15. Kitagawa in view of Watanabe, Lane, and Draper does not disclose the reflow melting system according to claim 1, further comprising a feeding device for conveying a terminal strip including a plurality of the terminals, including:
a feeding reel on which the terminal strip without forming the metal coating is wound ();
a recovery reel on which the terminal strip with the metal coating that has been melted and recrystallized is wound, the recovery reel rotates at a predetermined speed to pull the terminal strip to move from the feeding reel to the recovery reel; and
two pressing rollers respectively located at the feeding reel and the recovery reel for pressing the terminal strip on the feeding reel and the recovery reel.
Zhou discloses a reflowing tin plating process wherein the reflow melting system according to claim 1, further comprising a feeding device (conveying device 30, Fig. 3) for conveying a terminal strip including a plurality of the terminals (conveying device 30 moves the conductive substrate 110 with a plurality of electroplated tin layer that are used for terminals, par. 47), including:
a recovery reel (conveying device 30, Fig. 6) on which the terminal strip with the metal coating that has been melted and recrystallized is wound (irradiated strip is wound up by the conveying device, Fig. 6), the recovery reel rotates at a predetermined speed to pull the terminal strip to move from the feeding reel to the recovery reel (conveying device 30 moves at a predetermined speed, par. 37);
Lane discloses a reel-to-reel laser scanner for forming circuitry (par. 11) wherein a feeding reel on which the terminal strip without forming the metal coating is wound (reel-to-reel that feeds the metal foil, par. 201, Fig. 7, Lane);
two pressing rollers respectively located at the feeding reel and the recovery reel for pressing the terminal strip on the feeding reel and the recovery reel (press roller by 201, Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kitagawa in view of Watanabe, Lane, and Draper to incorporate the teachings of Zhou and Lane and have a conveying system with rollers to convey the reflow substrate. Doing so would have the benefit of increasing throughput in production of circuitries (par. 4-10, Lane)
The combined prior art does not explicitly teach having a press roller by the recovery reel, however it would been obvious to also include a press roller by the recover reel in order to help maintain pressure on the laminate as it is being reeled together.
11. Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa in view of Watanabe, Lane, and Draper as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hagenlocher (US 20160158884 A1)
Claim 24. Kitagawa in view of Watanabe, Lane, and Draper does not disclose the reflow melting system according to claim 1, wherein the laser head includes a flight or path tracking function.
Hagenlocher discloses a laser machining head wherein the system determines the actual position of the laser head (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kitagawa in view of Watanabe, Lane, and Draper to incorporate the teachings of Hagenlocher and track the position of the laser head along z-axis of the lifting mechanism. Doing so would have the benefit of preventing collision and misalignment (par. 4, Hagenlocher).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 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.
Claims 21-23 allowable
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not disclose a reflow melting system with a reel-to-reel system with two laser heads irradiating opposite surfaces of a terminal and having multiple image sensors synchronously capturing images of the melted coating to adjust the laser parameters and manipulators.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMPSON A CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/SIMPSON A CHEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights