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 Amendment
The amendment filed 18 November 2025 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the Claim objections. The Claim objections have been withdrawn.
A Claim interpretation section has been added in the present Office action.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous 35 USC § 112 rejections. However, Applicant’s amendments have provided grounds for additional 35 USC § 112 rejections.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 18 November 2025, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 still stand.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 18 November 2025, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1, 3-4, and 8 have been amended. Claims 12-16 are new.
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are the following:
“controller” in claim 1
The generic placeholder is “controller” (replacement for a means for controlling). The functional limitations are “configured to set…a coordinate … and set, to a predetermined speed, a speed of the tip.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a “microprocessor” and an algorithm (flowchart is shown in fig. 11).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The limitation in claim 12: “wherein the controller is configured to control the driver to stop movement of the tip at the soldering position while the tip performs soldering” is not mentioned in the original Specification nor in the original set of claims. As a result, by using this claim limitation, the Applicant introduces new matter into the patent application.
Additionally, although the Specification discloses a controller that has hardware and an algorithm, there is no disclosure of an algorithm for stopping the tip at the soldering position (the flowchart in fig. 11 does not show this step). As a result, there is insufficient disclosure because the Specification does not disclose an algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing (MPEP 2161.01).
The limitation in claim 13: “wherein the tip remains stationary at the land during soldering at the soldering position” is not mentioned in the original Specification nor in the original set of claims. As a result, by using this claim limitation, the Applicant introduces new matter into the patent application.
The limitation in claim 15: “the controller is configured to control the driver to move the tip to the soldering position, stop the tip at the soldering position to perform soldering” is not mentioned in the original Specification nor in the original set of claims. As a result, by using this claim limitation, the Applicant introduces new matter into the patent application.
Additionally, although the Specification discloses a controller that has hardware and an algorithm, there is no disclosure of an algorithm for moving the tip to the solder position and stopping the tip at the soldering position (the flowchart in fig. 11 does not show these series of steps). As a result, there is insufficient disclosure because the Specification does not disclose an algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing (MPEP 2161.01).
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.
In claims 12 and 15, the limitation “controller” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The structure described in the specification does not perform the entire function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 1-16 are 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 1 recites: “wherein the controller is configured to: set…. a coordinate of a specific position … wherein the specific position is set to define a distance which suppresses solder scattering.” It is not clear from the Specification what “distance” is sufficient to ensure that solder scattering is suppressed. It is also not clear what the difference is between a controller that is able to set a coordinate that is able to set a distance which ensures scattering suppression versus a controller that is not able to set a coordinate that ensures scattering suppression. Since there is no way of determining the requisite quantity of the claimed “distance,” as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed structure, it will be presumed that the system can operate as intended.
Claim 1 recites: “wherein the controller is configured to…. set… an evacuation speed of the tip in evacuation from the soldering position to the specific position to suppress solder scattering.” It is not clear what “evacuation speed” is sufficient to suppress scatting. Although the Specification discloses that speeds of less than 60mm/sec result in a “relatively small” number of scatterings, it is not clear if a “relatively small” number of scatterings is the same as suppressing soldering scatterings. The Specification also discloses using speeds as low as 40 mm/sec. Since there is no way of determining the requisite quantity of the claimed “evacuation speed,” as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed structure, it will be presumed that the system can operate as intended.
Claim 14 recites “the evacuation of the tip from the soldering position begins after completion of soldering at the soldering position.” A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the methods steps for using the apparatus is indefinite (MPEP 2173.05.p.II). It is unclear if infringement occurs based on the structural capabilities of the claimed “tip” or based on the method steps for using the claimed tip (beginning evacuation of the tip after soldering is completed). Recommend inserting “configured to” into this limitation.
Claims 2-13 and 15-16 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (JP-2013193123-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Sekine et al. (JP-2014195827-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
Regarding claim 1, Fujita teaches a soldering device (“soldering apparatus,” para 0001) for joining a workpiece (terminals 31, 32, and 33, fig. 3) to a land (lands 24, 25, and 26, fig. 3) provided on a main surface of a printed circuit board (top surface of board 2, fig. 3; “wiring,” paras 0004 and 0006), the soldering device comprising:
a soldering iron (soldering iron 13, fig. 3) having a tip (please see annotated fig. 3 below for the construed “tip”) which is heatable (para 0025);
a driver (moving device 12, fig. 1) configured to move the soldering iron (paras 0024-0025);
a controller (control device 16, fig. 1; a processor is not explicitly disclosed) configured to control the driver (para 0042), wherein
the controller is configured to:
set (“moves,” para 0043), based on the size information about the size of the workpiece (width of land 25, fig. 3; the Specification discloses that “size of the workpiece” is land width), a specific position (position X2, fig. 3; X2 is located at the middle of land 25, fig. 3) at a predetermined distance (distance between X2 and X1, fig. 3) from a soldering position (position X1, fig. 3) where the tip performs soldering (paras 0044 and 0057) wherein the specific position (X2, fig. 3) is set to define a distance (distance between the edge of the solder 15 at land 24 and the edge of the solder 15 at land 25, fig. 4) which suppresses solder scattering (solder is suppressed between these two edges, fig. 4) when the tip evacuates from molten solder at the soldering position (para 0044); and
set, to a predetermined speed (speed “VR,” para 0043), a speed of the tip in evacuation (“moving device 12 moves the soldering iron 13 in a straight line in the pull direction XA,” para 0037; being pulled in the direction XA is construed as an evacuation from the initial position of the iron 13 shown in fig. 3) at a distant position (left-most position X3, fig. 3; paras 0043 and 0062) which is farther away from the soldering position (X1, fig. 3) than the specific position (X2, fig. 3; in fig. 3, X3-X1>X2-X1), and set, to a speed (at X1, the speed is “VP;” para 0043) slower than the predetermined speed (“moving speed VR that is faster than the moving speed VP,” para 0043), an evacuation speed of the tip in evacuation from the soldering position (X1, fig. 3) to the specific position (X2, fig. 3) to suppress soldering scattering (solder is suppressed between these two edges of the solder 15 for lands 24 and 25, fig. 4).
Fujita, fig. 3 (annotated)
PNG
media_image1.png
348
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fujita does not explicitly disclose an input receiver configured to receive an input of size information about a size of the workpiece; a controller configured to set, based on the size information, a coordinate of a specific position.
However, in the same field of endeavor of soldering devices, Sekine teaches an input receiver (“input unit 30 is a touch panel,” para 0023; the Specification in the Instant Application discloses that the input receiver is a touch panel) configured to receive an input of size information (positions A and B, fig. 3; “movement distance,” para 0021) about a size of the workpiece (“the position where the user touches the touch panel with their finger or the like becomes the starting point of the soldering range, and the position where the user removes their finger from the touch panel and then touches the touch panel with their finger or the like again becomes the end point of the soldering range,” para 0023; construed such that a user can input the size by dragging their finger across a touch panel; figs. 4-5 show how distances are calculated, and the these distances are distances “about” terminal width); a controller (position setting device 10, fig. 1; “personal computer,” para 0012; construed as equivalent to a microprocessor) configured to set (para 0044, fig. 5 shows the optimum route that is calculated), based on the size information (para 0042), a coordinate of a specific position (coordinates for the soldering positions are shown in display 22, fig. 2).
Sekine, figs. 2 and 5
PNG
media_image2.png
480
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
498
430
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Fujita, in view of the teachings of Sekine, by using the touch panel, as taught by Sekine, as the input to the control device, as taught by Fujita, and a personal computer, as taught by Sekine, as the control device to calculate the coordinates of the terminals 31, 32, and 33, as taught by Fujita, in order to use a touch panel that easily and quickly provides input values to a personal computer that then calculates coordinates that are centered on each of the terminals and lands, as taught by Fujita, because inputting numerical values is not intuitive and requires a lot of time to input the values (Sekine, para 0004; fig. 4 of Fujita shows a circuit similar to what is shown in figs. 3-5 of Sekine).
Regarding claim 8, Fujita teaches wherein, to suppress solder scatting when the tip evacuates from molten solder at the soldering position (solder is suppressed between these two edges of the solder 15 for lands 24 and 25, fig. 4), the controller (control device 16, fig. 1) is configured to control (paras 0042-0043), to the evacuation speed (speed VP, para 0043), the speed of the tip (tip of soldering iron 13, fig. 3) in evacuation (direction XA, fig. 3) until a lapse of a predetermined time (elapsed time is shown on the x-axis, fig. 6; “FIG. 6 shows an example of temperature change in the power supply land 24,” para 0056; land 24 correlates with position X1, fig. 3) required for the tip to reach at least the specific position (position X2, fig. 3) from the soldering position (position X1, fig. 3; construed such that fig. 6 shows that there is a predetermined elapsed time for the solder iron as it transits from position X1 to position X2 based on the speeds taught in fig. 7).
Regarding claim 16, Fujita teaches wherein the controller (control device 16, fig. 1) is configured to set the coordinate of the specific position (X2, fig. 3) at a position away from the main surface of the printed circuit board (X2 is above the surface of the top board 2, fig. 3).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (JP-2013193123-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Sekine et al. (JP-2014195827-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Mori et al. (US-20180049356-A1).
Regarding claim 2, Fujita/Sekine teach the invention as described above but do not explicitly disclose wherein the input receiver is configured to receive width information about a land width of the land, as the size of the workpiece, as the size information (measuring a land width is not specifically disclosed by Sekine).
However, in the same field of endeavor of soldering devices, Mori teaches wherein the input receiver (analyzer Y5, fig. 1; para 0051) is configured to receive width information about a land width (“The analyzer Y5 then calculates a land position (X, Y), a land width (W),” para 0062) of the land (lands 23, fig. 2), as the size of the workpiece (“land width,” para 0062; the land width is understood to be the “size of the workpiece” in view of the Specification), as the size information (para 0062).
Mori, fig. 2
PNG
media_image4.png
1194
832
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Fujita/Sekine, in view of the teachings of Mori, by using an analyzer, as taught by Mori, to determine the land width, as taught by Mori, of the image on the touch panel, as taught by Sekine, of the board substrate, as taught by Fujita, in order to precisely determine the actual width of the lands, because the lands are formed from a part of a copper foil that is uncovered with resist, where the actual surface area or shape of the land may often deviate from its intended design value (Mori, para 0006).
Regarding claim 3, Fujita teaches wherein the controller (control device 16, fig. 1) is configured to set (“moves,” para 0043) the coordinate of the specific position on a position (position X2, fig. 3) that is farther from a center of the land width (center of X1, fig. 3) than a semicircular imaginary region (power supply land 24 is circular, fig. 4; the right half of land 24 closest to land 25 is construed as the claimed “semicircular imaginary region”) in an evacuation direction (XA, fig. 3) of the tip; the semicircular region being defined by the land width (diameter of land 24, fig. 4) having a center (center of land 24, fig. 4) of the semicircular imaginary region at a center (center of land 24, fig. 4) of the land width (diameter or width of land 24, fig. 4; please see annotated fig. 4 below).
Fujita, fig. 4 (annotated)
PNG
media_image5.png
271
891
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Fujita teaches wherein the semicircular imaginary region (please see annotated fig. 4 above) has a radius of between ½ times and 1 times the land width (in annotated fig. 4 above, the radius of the construed semicircle is approximately half of the land width of land 24).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (JP-2013193123-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Sekine et al. (JP-2014195827-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) and Mori et al. (US-20180049356-A1) as applied to claims 1-3 above and further in view of Teraoka et al. (US-20180236582-A1, hereinafter Teraoka ‘582).
Fujita teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the input receiver is configured to further receive angle information about a tip evacuation angle representing an angle defined by a surface of the land and an evacuation route of the tip, and the controller is configured to set the coordinate of the specific position by further using the angle information.
However, in the same field of endeavor of soldering devices, Teraoka ‘582 teaches wherein the input receiver (user input device 6, fig. 1; “touch panel,” para 0080) is configured to further receive angle information (“allows the user to enter or edit angle θ,” para 0097) about a tip evacuation angle (para 0079; the tip of the soldering iron is the distal end 91, fig. 3) representing an angle (beta, bottom plot of fig. 9; “corresponds to angular direction θ,” para 0200) defined by a surface of the land (surface PL, fig. 3; XY-plane, fig. 9) and an evacuation route of the tip (vector OL, bottom plot of fig. 9; construed as moving from the “end point” to the “start point”), and the controller is configured to set the coordinate of the specific position by further using the angle information (paras 0198-0199).
Teraoka ‘582, bottom plot of fig. 9
PNG
media_image6.png
202
342
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Fujita/Sekine, in view of the teachings of Teraoka ‘582, by using the touch pad, as taught by Sekine, to also enter and edit an angle, as taught by Teraoka ‘582, when the iron 13 is at position X2, as taught by Fujita, in order to move the distal end of the soldering iron at a specific angle to avoid hitting an obstacle (e.g., another component) or to pull the soldering iron in a direction perpendicular to the melt process, which may reduce the occurrence of copper exposure, i.e., the “red-eye” defect (Teraoka ‘582, para 0034).
Claim 6, 9, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (JP-2013193123-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Sekine et al. (JP-2014195827-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) and Mori et al. (US-20180049356-A1) as applied to claims 1-3 above and further in view of Teraoka et al. (US-20180236582-A1, hereinafter Teraoka ‘582).
Regarding claim 6, Fujita teaches the controller (control device 16, fig. 1) is configured to set the coordinate of the specific position (position X2, fig. 3), to a coordinate of a position (position X2, fig. 3) farther away from the soldering position (position X1, fig. 3) than an intersection position (please see annotated fig. 3 below; intersection between the construed imaginary plane and position X1) between an imaginary plane (please see annotated fig. 3; construed as being a plane in the depth/vertical directions) perpendicular to the main surface of the printed circuit board (top surface of board 2, fig. 3) extending from an outer edge of the land (right edge of land 24, fig. 3) and the evacuation route of the tip calculated from the angle information (construed as moving along the angled vector OL taught by Teraoka ‘582).
Fujita, fig. 3 (annotated)
PNG
media_image7.png
403
471
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fujita does not explicitly disclose wherein the input receiver is configured to further receive angle information about a tip evacuation angle representing an angle defined by a surface of the land and an evacuation route of the tip.
However, in the same field of endeavor of soldering devices, Teraoka ‘582 teaches wherein the input receiver (user input device 6, fig. 1; “touch panel,” para 0080) is configured to further receive angle information (“allows the user to enter or edit angle θ,” para 0097) about a tip evacuation angle (para 0079; the tip of the soldering iron is the distal end 91, fig. 3) representing an angle (beta, bottom plot of fig. 9; “corresponds to angular direction θ,” para 0200) defined by a surface of the land (surface PL, fig. 3; XY-plane, fig. 9) and an evacuation route of the tip (vector OL, bottom plot of fig. 9; construed as moving from the “end point” to the “start point”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Fujita/Sekine, in view of the teachings of Teraoka ‘582, by using the touch pad, as taught by Sekine, to also enter and edit an angle, as taught by Teraoka ‘582, when the iron 13 is moving to position X2, as taught by Fujita, in order to move the distal end of the soldering iron at a specific angle to avoid hitting an obstacle (e.g., another component) or to pull the soldering iron in a direction perpendicular to the melt process, which may reduce the occurrence of copper exposure, i.e., the “red-eye” defect (Teraoka ‘582, para 0034).
Regarding claim 9, Fujita teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the input receiver is configured to further receive feed amount information about an amount of solder to be fed in joining the workpiece to the land, and the controller is configured to set the coordinate of the specific position by further using the feed amount information.
However, in the same field of endeavor of soldering devices, Teraoka ‘582 teaches wherein the input receiver (user input device 6, fig. 1; “touch panel,” para 0080) is configured to further receive feed amount information about an amount of solder (“the user can edit values for a solder supply amount,” para 0101) to be fed in joining the workpiece to the land (“principal melt process,” para 0101), and the controller is configured to set the coordinate of the specific position by further using the feed amount information (“amount per unit distance traveled…a certain amount of solder can be applied on a line with the start point and the end point as both ends,” paras 0167- 0168; construed as setting the coordinates to also include information related to the amount of solder that should be supplied).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Fujita/Sekine, in view of the teachings of Teraoka ‘582, by using the touch pad, as taught by Sekine, to also enter and edit the solder supply amount, as taught by Teraoka ‘582, in order to tailor the amount of solder that is applied based on position, e.g., adding more solder to a coordinate can result in a smooth gloss appearance at a desired position, for the advantage of improving the appearance of the solder (Teraoka ‘582, paras 0029 and 0167-0170).
Regarding claim 12, Fujita teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to control the driver to stop movement of the tip at the soldering position while the tip performs soldering.
However, in the same field of endeavor of soldering devices, Teraoka ‘582 teaches wherein the controller (“computer,” para 0013) is configured to control the driver (drive mechanism 4, fig. 1) to stop movement of the tip at the soldering position (“the driving mechanism stops the distal end of the heating tool at the first point,” para 0017) while the tip performs soldering (para 0023).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Fujita/Sekine, in view of the teachings of Teraoka ‘582, by using the computer, as taught by Sekine, to conduct point soldering and to stop at a first point, as taught by Teraoka ‘582, instead of drag soldering, as taught by Fujita, because this amounts to a simple substitution of one type of soldering known in the art for another with predictable results (point soldering and drag soldering are two modes that produce the same result of soldering), for the advantage of stopping the heat tool at a first point so that it is unlikely to have a large impact force that can damage the distal end of the tool (Teraoka ‘582, paras 0084 and 0175; Teraoka ‘582 teaches an invention that is able to do speed adjustments, fig. 11).
Regarding claim 13, Fujita teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the tip remains stationary at the land during soldering at the soldering position.
However, in the same field of endeavor of soldering devices, Teraoka ‘582 teaches wherein the tip remains stationary at the land during soldering at the soldering position (“the driving mechanism stops the distal end of the heating tool at the first point,” para 0017; construed such that the distal end is stationary when it stops).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Fujita/Sekine, in view of the teachings of Teraoka ‘582, to conduct point soldering and to stop at a first point, as taught by Teraoka ‘582, instead of drag soldering, as taught by Fujita, because this amounts to a simple substitution of one type of soldering known in the art for another with predictable results (point soldering and drag soldering are two modes that produce the same result of soldering), for the advantage of stopping the heat tool at a first point so that it is unlikely to have a large impact force that can damage the distal end of the tool (Teraoka ‘582, paras 0084 and 0175; Teraoka ‘582 teaches an invention that is able to do speed adjustments, fig. 11).
Regarding claim 14, Fujita teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the evacuation of the tip from the soldering position begins after completion of soldering at the soldering position.
However, in the same field of endeavor of soldering devices, Teraoka ‘582 teaches wherein the evacuation of the tip from the soldering position begins after completion of soldering at the soldering position (“after completion of the first melt process (principal melt process), the process control module may cause the driving mechanism to move the distal end to a certain recede position away from the surface of the substrate on which the melt process is performed,” para 0026).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Fujita/Sekine, in view of the teachings of Teraoka ‘582, to conduct point soldering and to recede the iron, as taught by Teraoka ‘582, instead of drag soldering, as taught by Fujita, because this amounts to a simple substitution of one type of soldering known in the art for another with predictable results (point soldering and drag soldering are two modes that produce the same result of soldering) (Teraoka ‘582, para 0084; Teraoka ‘582 teaches an invention that is able to do speed adjustments, fig. 11).
Regarding claim 15, Fujita teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to control the driver to move the tip to the soldering position, stop the tip at the soldering position to perform soldering, and then evacuate the tip from the soldering position at the evacuation speed.
However, in the same field of endeavor of soldering devices, Teraoka ‘582 teaches wherein the controller (“computer,” para 0013) is configured to control the driver (drive mechanism 4, fig. 1) to move the tip to the soldering position (“a second route from the start point to the end point,” para 0048), stop the tip at the soldering position to perform soldering (paras 0017 and 0023), and then evacuate the tip from the soldering position (“third route,” para 0048) at the evacuation speed (speed V3, fig. 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Fujita/Sekine, in view of the teachings of Teraoka ‘582, to conduct point soldering and to advance to and recede from an end point, as taught by Teraoka ‘582, instead of drag soldering, as taught by Fujita, because this amounts to a simple substitution of one type of soldering known in the art for another with predictable results (point soldering and drag soldering are two modes that produce the same result of soldering) (Teraoka ‘582, para 0084; Teraoka ‘582 teaches an invention that is able to do speed adjustments, fig. 11).
Claims 7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (JP-2013193123-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Sekine et al. (JP-2014195827-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Teraoka et al. (US-20190099818-A1, hereinafter Teraoka ‘818; one of the identified inventors in the Instant Application is also an inventor in this reference; however, two of the inventors in the reference are not identified as inventors in the Instant Application; as a result, this reference is considered to be valid prior art even though this reference was published in the one-year grace period afforded to inventors, referencing MPEP 2153.01.a).
Regarding claim 7, Fujita teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the input receiver is configured to further receive shape information about a shape of the tip, and the controller is configured to set the coordinate of the specific position by further using the shape information.
However, in the same field of endeavor of soldering devices, Teraoka ‘818 teaches wherein the input receiver (coordinate input portion 134, fig. 7) is configured to further receive shape information about a shape of the tip (“coordinates of the iron tip of the soldering iron 115,” para 0032; the coordinates of the tip are construed as being shape information), and the controller is configured to set the coordinate of the specific position by further using the shape information (“the operator may operate the coordinate input portion 134 to store as the soldering position in the soldering apparatus 100 a coordinate value of a position of the iron tip in a coordinate space, which is set for arithmetic processes to be executed by the soldering apparatus 100,” para 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Fujita, in view of the teachings of Teraoka ‘818, by adding a general processing button as a coordinate input portion 134, as taught by Teraoka ‘818, to measure the tip of the soldering iron 13, as taught by Fujita, in order to precisely determine the position of the iron tip in a coordinate space, which can then be used for arithmetic processes to be executed by the soldiering apparatus, because if the positions of the tip of the soldering iron were instead entered by hand, then it would require a great deal of labor from the operator to complete the data entry (Teraoka ‘818, paras 0005 and 0032).
Regarding claim 10, Fujita teaches wherein the controller (control device 16, fig. 1) is configured to set (“moves,” para 0043) the coordinate of the specific position (position X2, fig. 3), using a coordinate (center of position X1, fig. 3; para 0042) of an intersection (the center lies on the construed semicircle in annotated fig. 4 above) of an evacuation direction (direction XA, fig. 3) of the tip and a semicircular imaginary region (annotated in fig. 4 above) defined by the land width (diameter of land 24, fig. 4) having a center of the semicircular imaginary region at a center of the land width (center of land 24, fig. 4).
Fujita does not explicitly disclose wherein the input receiver is configured to receive shape information about a shape of the tip, the shape information including a tip shape offset amount, and the controller is configured to set the coordinate of the specific position, using the tip shape offset amount
However, in the same field of endeavor of soldering devices, Teraoka ‘818 teaches wherein the input receiver (coordinate input portion 134, fig. 7) is configured to further receive shape information about a shape of the tip (“coordinates of the iron tip of the soldering iron 115,” para 0032; the coordinates of the tip are construed as being shape information), the shape information including a tip shape offset amount (“offset amounts ‘xa,’ ‘ya,’” para 0056), and the controller (controller 170, fig. 1) is configured to set the coordinate of the specific position (positions shown in fig. 8; para 0050), using the tip shape offset amount (“xa” and “ya,” fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Fujita, in view of the teachings of Teraoka ‘818, by adding a general processing button as a coordinate input portion 134, as taught by Teraoka ‘818, to measure the tip of the soldering iron 13, as taught by Fujita, in order to precisely determine the position of the iron tip in a coordinate space, which can then be used for arithmetic processes to be executed by the soldiering apparatus, because if the positions of the tip of the soldering iron were instead entered by hand, then it would require a great deal of labor from the operator to complete the data entry (Teraoka ‘818, paras 0005 and 0032) .
Regarding claim 11, Fujita teaches wherein the controller (control device 16, fig. 1) is configured to set (“moves,” para 0043) the coordinate of the specific position (position X2, fig. 3), using a coordinate (center of position X1, fig. 3; para 0042) of an intersection (the center lies on the construed semicircle in annotated fig. 4 above) of an evacuation direction (direction XA, fig. 3) of the tip and an imaginary plane (construed as the imaginary plane that is vertical along the dotted line that runs through the center of land 24 in annotated fig. 4 above; construed plane divides terminal 31 in half, fig. 3) perpendicular to the main surface of the printed circuit board (construed plane is perpendicular to the surface of the sample substrate 4, fig. 4) extending from an outer edge of the land (construed plane intersects the edge of land 24 twice and extends vertically from these two edges, fig. 4).
Fujita does not explicitly disclose wherein the input receiver is configured to receive shape information about a shape of the tip, the shape information including a tip shape offset amount, and the controller is configured to set the coordinate of the specific position, using the tip shape offset amount
However, in the same field of endeavor of soldering devices, Teraoka ‘818 teaches wherein the input receiver (coordinate input portion 134, fig. 7) is configured to further receive shape information about a shape of the tip (“coordinates of the iron tip of the soldering iron 115,” para 0032; the coordinates of the tip are construed as being shape information), the shape information including a tip shape offset amount (“offset amounts ‘xa,’ ‘ya,’” para 0056), and the controller (controller 170, fig. 1) is configured to set the coordinate of the specific position (positions shown in fig. 8; para 0050), using the tip shape offset amount (“xa” and “ya,” fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Fujita, in view of the teachings of Teraoka ‘818, by adding a general processing button as a coordinate input portion 134, as taught by Teraoka ‘818, to measure the tip of the soldering iron 13, as taught by Fujita, in order to precisely determine the position of the iron tip in a coordinate space, which can then be used for arithmetic processes to be executed by the soldiering apparatus, because if the positions of the tip of the soldering iron were instead entered by hand, then it would require a great deal of labor from the operator to complete the data entry (Teraoka ‘818, paras 0005 and 0032) .
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 18 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections Under 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
In response to applicant’s arguments that Fujita (JP2013193123A) and Sekine (JP2014195827) failed to disclose individually, or suggest in combination, how a controller is configured to perform certain functions, the applicant is respectfully advised that, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In this case, there are no structural differences between the structure that is claimed and the structure that is taught by Fujita. Instead of relying on structural differences, the Applicant relies on functional limitations in order to distinguish their claimed invention over the prior art references. An apparatus claim covers what an apparatus is, not what an apparatus does (MPEP 2114).
The examiner agrees with the Applicant’s description of Fujita on pages 8-10 that Fujita teaches drag soldering. However, a “point soldering system” is not required in claim 1. Additionally, one of the modifyin