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 were received on 9/10/25. These drawings are unacceptable.
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 “camera” of claim 1 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 § 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, 4,5, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingle et al. (US 4,470,670) in view of Basu et al. (2020/0297281 A1), Arahata et al. (US 2010/0059574 A1), and alternatively in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
Regarding claim 1, Ingle teaches:
A system [apparatus (12); figure 1], comprising:
a fixture [fixture (20)];
a laser assembly [indicator device/laser (10)];
a stage [adjustable support plate (18)] which is configured to move the fixture relative to the laser assembly [5:8-15]; and
a soldering gun [ultrasonic bonding tool (26)];
wherein the operator:
identifies bonding area on a substrate [workpiece (22); 5:5-15], wherein the fixture holds the substrate [4:1-5];
causes the stage to move the fixture with the substrate relative to the laser assembly for marking the bonding position [the operator moves the support plate so that the laser spot marks the bonding point; 5:5-15];
causes the laser assembly to emit a laser beam toward the substrate to mark the bonding position with a laser spot of the laser beam [6:3-7, it is intrinsic or obvious that the operator turns the laser on when one is going to use the laser in order to use the apparatus];
causes the soldering gun to move relative to the fixture to the bonding position [Note the tool moves from a home position to a bonding position; 4:34-42. It is intrinsic or obvious that the operator causes this movement since the apparatus is not automated]; and
causes the soldering gun to bond at the bonding position [it is intrinsic or obvious that the operator activates the bonding tool since the apparatus is not automated].
Ingle does not teach:
a camera configured to capture an image and output image data;
one or more processors; and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, are configured to cause the system to:
receive the image data from the camera;
identify, based at least in part on the image data, the given soldering pad among the multiple soldering pads, wherein the fixture holds (i) a substrate of a distal end assembly of a catheter and (ii) a lead placed on the given soldering pad among multiple soldering pads that are disposed on the substrate;
cause the stage to move the fixture with the substrate and the lead relative to the laser assembly for marking the soldering position, at which the lead is to be attached to the given soldering pad among the multiple soldering pads;
cause the laser assembly to emit a laser beam toward the substrate and the given soldering pad among the multiple soldering pads to mark the soldering position with a laser spot of the laser beam;
cause the soldering gun to move relative to the fixture to the soldering position; and
cause the soldering gun to solder the lead to the given soldering pad among the multiple soldering pads.
Concerning the bonding of catheter elements via soldering:
Note that AAPA states “that "ultrasonic soldering" is a process known and understood in the art”, page 6 of 9/23/24 arguments, and claim 5 requires that an ultrasonic soldering gun performs the soldering.
Basu teaches soldering lead wires (30) to solder patches (88), on a distal end of a catheter, in a diagonal direction when manufacturing a catheter; 0043 and figure 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the Ingle apparatus to be able to ultrasonically bond/solder the lead wires and solder patches of Basu because this apparatus allows the operator to easily and properly align the bonding tool and bonding point. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to ultrasonically solder the leads to the solder patches since it does not require flux and/or is a known process and to incorporate any means/tool to do so, minus any unexpected results.
Concerning the camera and use positioning:
Note that in Ingle a human/operator repeatedly identifies each bonding point, aligns the laser to each bonding point, and activates the bonding tool to form each bond.
Arahata teaches automated bonding apparatus (1), comprising control device (17) having a microcomputer/processor (that executes a program for controlling the entire apparatus), camera (8), XY table (12), and bonding tool (3), wherein the control device moves the XY table based on images from the camera and moves/aligns the tool to perform the bonding; 0054-0059.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Arahata automated bonding concept into Ingle in order to automate the Ingle apparatus/process. In doing so, any component necessary to do so, such as the camera, control device, program, etc., would be incorporated. Note that this is nothing more than automating a manual activity. In doing so, the prior art system, that based on the combination of Ingle, Arahata, Basu, and AAPA, would be configured to automatically perform the claimed steps in order to solder a plurality of the leads to the substrate of the distal-end assembly of the catheter.
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 12,
wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the soldering gun to move relative to the substrate for aligning the soldering gun and the laser spot; and
the memory storing instructions being further configured to, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to:
cause the soldering gun to solder a plurality of leads onto a plurality of soldering pads; and
cause the soldering gun to solder each lead of the plurality of leads in a diagonal direction with respect to an edge of the soldering fixture, thereby increasing a distance between adjacent soldering pads of the plurality of soldering pads.
As noted in the rejection of claim 1, the processor/program is configured to move the gun into position for soldering, to solder a plurality of bonding points, and to do so in a diagonal direction.
Concerning any claimed results:
Since the prior art process, i.e. the process based on the combined prior art references above, is identical to the claimed process it is the examiner’s position that the prior art process will achieve any claimed result; such as increasing a distance. This reasoning applies to any claim/rejection in this action where a result is claimed.
Regarding claim 5,
wherein the soldering gun is configured to ultrasonically attach the lead to the given soldering pad at the soldering position by applying an ultrasound signal to the soldering position.
As noted in the rejection of claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the proper ultrasonic soldering means to do so.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure; see PTO 892.
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