Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Fig. 5 the “Solder Deposition Machine 21” and the “Laser assisted soldering apparatus 20” have lead lines that do not distinguish which structures are entailed by the reference numeral. It is understood that both reference numerals are referring to system of components, however both lead lines seem to be pointing or referencing the entire system. 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 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) 12-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2006/0219760 to Wagoh in view of JP 2006305634 to Yiusing
Regarding claims 12, 16, 17 and 19
Wagoh in the embodiments of Figs. 1 and 3 teaches:
A laser-assisted soldering apparatus (Figs. 1 and 3), comprising: a solder jetting section (152, 155,121,128,) that includes a jetting nozzle (nozzled – i.e. converging – portion of 152) and a solder body holding capillary (152) adapted to hold a solder body that is being liquefied by a laser beam (117); and a laser coupling unit that includes an optical window (127) and a body that is cylindrical (104; Fig. 1) with a laser entry (aperture nearest the laser in which the laser enters the body as shown in Fig. 1) , a laser passage (open portion 119) and a laser exit (exit aperture of 119 to which 102 is fixed), wherein the laser passage extends lengthwise through the body from the laser entry to the laser exit (Figs. 1 and 3) , wherein the optical window is disposed towards the laser entry and is transparent to the laser beam (Fig. 1 ¶ [0040] “glass material allowing transmission”), wherein the fastening section (annotated Fig. 1) is disposed towards the laser exit and is fastened to the solder jetting section (Fig. 1; in that the entire unit is fastened together). and wherein the solder jetting section includes a second pressure gas feeding passage (174) that merges into the solder body holding capillary at a second connection location located between the laser exit of the laser coupling unit and the jetting nozzle of the solder jetting section (Fig. 3; while 174 merges on the jetting nozzle, it is noted that it is not entirely at the edge, i.e. 174 is between portions of the jetting nozzle and the laser exit; this is considered to be within the BRI of “between”).
PNG
media_image1.png
360
840
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim interpretation note: Figs. 1 and 3 together describe a single embodiment as explained in (¶ [0054]; i.e. any unshown portions of Fig. 3 are the same structure as that shown in Fig. 1).
Wagoh in the embodiment of Figs. 1 and 3 fails to teach wherein a first pressure gas feeding passage (174; negative pressure “suction”) merges into the laser passage at a first connection location located between the optical window and exit (Fig. 1) , wherein the laser passage is aligned with the solder body holding capillary (Fig. 1, aligned in that they work together to deliver the solder ball). It is however noted that Wagoh teaches compressed gas can be used to push the solder in Fig. 10, but there is no provided structural detail as to where the gas is introduced.
Yusui teaches a soldering apparatus wherein a first pressure gas feeding passage (Fig. 10, passage from which 92 emerges) merges into the laser passage at a first connection location aligned with the solder body holding capillary (Fig. 10a aligned in that it is located proximal to the solder ball outlet and the pressure pushes it through the capillary) that is directed towards the laser exit (see flow path 92) and which merges perpendicularly into the laser passage (Fig. 10)
As such it would have been obvious to provide Wagoh with a first pressure gas feeding pass margining into the laser passage aligned with the solder ball holding capillary as taught by Yusui in order to provide additional pressure to move the solder through the soldering system.
Note that when modifying Wagoh to have the first pressure gas feeding passage aligned with solder body holding capillary as taught by Yusui this will necessarily be between the optical window and exit when applied to the structure of Wagoh (see location of solder ball outlet in Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 13 and 14
Wagoh as modified teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but fails to specifically teach that the first pressure gas feeding passage and the second pressure gas feeding passage are connected to a common pressure gas reservoir.
While the modified Wagoh does not specifically teach a reservoir it is taken as inherent that a “reservoir” in its broadest form (a source) must exist as the compressed gas must come from somewhere and that somewhere can be interpreted as the “reservoir”.
As to whether the first/second feeding passages share a common (claim 13) or have individual (claim 14) reservoirs this would be considered obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. As stated in MPEP §2143 a prima facie case of obviousness based on obvious to try is appropriate when there is a recognized need (in this case a recognized need to provide air pressure to move solder balls) and there are a finite number of identified predictable solution (in this case the pressure can be provided in only one of two ways, the passageways may have individual or may have a shared pressure reservoir) and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success (in this case the application of compressed fluid to provide pressure is well established and shown in function by both Wagoh and Yusui).
Regarding claim 15
The modified Wagoh teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but does not specifically teach that the first pressure gas reservoir contains gas at a higher pressure than that contained in the second pressure gas reservoir.
It is noted however that reservoir pressure is a well understood result effective variable that will define the pressure drop between the reservoir and the outlet which will inherently by means of Bernoulli’s theorem will allow for greater air velocity and force to be delivered by the fluid. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the pressure values of the reservoirs in order to optimize the pressure drop between reservoirs and the outlets to optimize velocity and force delivery.
Regarding claim 18
The modified Wagoh teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but fails to specifically teach that the first pressure gas feeding passage merges into the laser passage at an acute angle. However, it is noted that Applicant has not stated that there is any particular advantage or synergy or unexpected result with having the gas feed at an acute angle. In fact Applicant has stated that a perpendicular angle (as shown in the modified Wagoh) performs equivalently. As such it would have been nothing more than an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrive at the acute angle as claimed.
Regarding claim 20
Wagoh as modified teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, and further teaches wherein the body includes a main body part (main portion of body 104) and a window body part circular groove portion of 104 in which 127 is placed as shown in Fig. 1) and wherein the optical window is attached to the window body part (i.e. it is placed in the groove portion as shown in Fig. 1).
Wagoh as modified does not specifically teach wherein the window body part screws into the main body part
In order to arrive at the claimed invention two modifications of Wagoh must take place. Firstly, in Wagoh the window body part and the main body part are integrated. So the window body part and the main body part need to be made separable. Secondly. Since the parts (main and window body part) are integrated and not separable they are also not “screwed into” each other.
With regards to being made separable Applicant has not stated that having the window body part and the main body part separable solves any particular problem or is for any particular purpose above and beyond providing the components. As such it appears that it would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the window and main body part separable.
Further, the examiner takes official notice that attaching separable components by “screwing into” is an old and well-known method of attaching components. As such it would also be obvious to modify the main body part and the window body part such that they are “screwed into” each other for the purpose attachment as this is a well-known and predictable way of attaching components.
Regarding claim 21
Wherein the fastening section is coupled to the solder jetting section (Fig. 1) but does not specifically teach that the fastening section is coupled by “screwing in” to the solder jetting section but is instead connected by what appears to be a friction fit although it is not specifically disclosed what fastening means is used.
However, the examiner takes official notice that connected components by “screwing in” , i.e. by providing complimentary fasteners is a well-known way of attaching mechanical components that yields only the predictable result of fastening through rotation. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Wagoh such that the fastening section is connected to the solder jetting section by means of a screw connection in order to provide a known secure and predictable fastening connection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22 is 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. There appears to be no prior art which further teaches a pressure gas connection body part attached to the main body part and wherein the feeding passage enters the laser passage through the pressure gas connection body part.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WOODY A LEE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0800-1630.
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, Edward "Ned" Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/WOODY A LEE JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761