DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The following is in reply to the applicants submission (e.g. amendment, remarks, etc.) filed on June 1, 2026.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 15 remains as being withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on November 7, 2025.
Newly submitted Claims 18 through 27 are directed to an invention (i.e. new Group IV) that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed (i.e. Group II) for the following reasons:
Groups II and IV each lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical features (in Claim 10), these technical features are not special technical features as they do not make a contribution over the prior art in view of the following references (as applied to Claim 10).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention (Group II), this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits.
Accordingly, Claims 18 through 27 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Specification
The objections to the specification in the previous office action1 have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the Title and Abstract.
Claim Objections
The objections to the claims in the previous office action have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Drawings
The drawings were received on May 18, 2026 as part of the submission and have been approved for entry.
Claim Interpretation
The claim interpretation from the previous office action is hereby repeated and/or maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 11 and 12 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.
In Claim 11, it is unclear what is meant by the phrase of “Error! Reference source not found.” (line 1). The phrase raises uncertainty as to what the dependency is for the claim. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted to depend from Claim 10. Thes problems in Claim 11 also occurs in Claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 10, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication 2017/0348786 to Nakamura (hereinafter “Nakamura”) in view of the teachings of:
1) U.S. Publication 2011/0208895 to Wiegers et al (hereinafter “Wiegers”);
2) U.S. Publication 2003/0170921 to Akram (hereinafter “Akram”);
3) U.S. Publication 2010/0230472 to Okamoto et al (hereinafter “Okamoto”).
Claim 10: Nakamura discloses a system (e.g. Fig. 3) for depositing a solder medium (e.g. P), the system comprising:
a non-contact dispensing device (e.g. M2, Fig. 1, or 17, 13, 44, 11, etc. in Fig. 3) arranged for applying droplets of the solder medium onto a local surface of the workpiece (e.g. 4) onto which a component is to be mounted (e.g. ¶ [0046]);
a surface measurement device (e.g. cameras 16, Fig. 3, or 71, 72, Fig. 10) configured to perform measurements of at least one of the first surface and the local surface; and
a control unit (e.g. 3, 90, Fig. 12) adapted to:
obtain information regarding both the component and the workpiece [with cameras, ¶¶ [0036], [0052]);
determine, based on the information, respective amounts of a plurality of deposits of the solder medium that are to be formed on the local surface, such that the plurality of deposits forms a connection between the component and the workpiece upon placing the component on the workpiece (e.g. ¶ [0048]); and
cause the non-contact dispensing device to form each of the plurality of deposits of the solder medium by applying droplets the solder medium (e.g. Pa, Fig. 3) using the non-contact dispensing.
The non-contact dispensing device (at 44) does not contact the workpiece (e.g. 4, in Figs. 8A, 8B).
Claim 11: Nakamura discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the control unit is in communicative contact with a storage unit (e.g. 81, Fig. 12) comprising information regarding the component or the workpiece.
Claim 14: Nakamura discloses the system of claim 13, wherein the surface measurement device (e.g. 16, 71 or 72) is arranged to perform the measurements of the at least one of the first surface and the local surface while the non-contact dispensing device (e.g. at 44) applies the droplets of the solder medium onto the at least one of the local surface (e.g. of 4).
Nakamura does not the term of “viscous” to describe the solder, or solder medium, i.e. viscous medium. Moreover, Nakamura does not mention that the information obtained is both a surface topography of the first surface of the component and the local surface of the workpiece. Lastly, Nakamura does not mention determining heights of the deposits of the viscous medium.
The solder medium dispensed by Nakamura is done so by printing (e.g. ¶¶ [0045], [0046]). Wiegers teaches that solder is dispensed by printing as a paste, which is viscous in form (e.g. ¶ [0023]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the solder medium of Nakamura is viscous, or a viscous medium, which is a necessary material state to dispense by printing.
Akram discloses an art-recognized equivalent system that dispenses a viscous medium (e.g. Fig. 17) that uses a camera to obtain information regarding a surface topography of a first surface of a component (e.g. 10) and local surface of a workpiece (e.g. 20). Akram states that obtaining information of surface topography helps to detect defective or damaged components or workpieces before connecting or soldering components to the workpiece, (e.g. ¶ [0084]).
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 the control unit of Nakamura by adding either one camera, or one camera for each the component and workpiece, to obtain information of surface topography of the first surface of the component and the local surface of the workpiece, as taught by Akram, to detect any defective or damaged components or workpieces prior to connecting each to one another.
Regarding Claim 11, Akram further teaches a storage unit (e.g. memory on computer) to store information regarding surface topography of the first surface and local surface as part of data files (e.g. ¶¶ [0066], [0082], [0084]). Therefore, 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 the storage unit of Nakamura by including the surface topography taught by Akram, to keep data files necessary on the components and workpieces in determining whether or not they are defective or damaged.
To reiterate, Nakamura does teach determining, based on the information received from camera, respective amounts of deposits of the viscous medium that are to be formed on the local surface of the workpiece (e.g. ¶ [0048]).
Okamoto teaches dispensing a viscous medium (e.g. 7, Fig. 2) on a workpiece by printing where the amounts of the viscous medium being deposited on the workpiece (e.g. 5, Fig. 2) directly correlate to the heights of the plurality of deposits (e.g. ¶ [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the amounts of the plurality of deposits that Nakamura determines, can directly correlate to heights of the deposits of the viscous medium, based on the teachings of Okamoto, when dispensing the droplets or deposits of the viscous medium.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Wiegers, Akram, and Okamoto, as applied to Claim 10 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication 2017/0252869 to Fritzsche et al (hereinafter “Fritzsche”).
Nakamura, as modified by Wiegers, Akram, and Okamoto, discloses the claimed system as relied upon above in Claim 10, further including a screen printing non-contact dispensing device. The modified Nakamura system does not teach a jet printing device.
Fritzsche discloses that there are many ways to dispense a viscous medium of solder by a device, which can be by screen printing, stencil printing, or jet printing (e.g. ¶ [0056]).
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 the non-contact dispensing device of Nakamura, to allow the device to perform jet printing, as taught by Fritzsche, to provide an art-recognized equivalent form of dispensing the very same droplets of a viscous medium or solder.
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments filed as part of their submission have been fully considered, but have not been deemed to be found as persuasive.
In regards to the merits of Nakamura, applicants urge that Nakamura does not teach a “non-contacting dispensing device arranged…said component is to be mounted” (lines 3-5 of Claim 1). Nakamura’s screen printing method, because it uses a screen mask (13) and squeegee (42) to press a uniform layer of solder onto a board, this is somehow solely limited to a “contact method”.
The examiner disagrees. The above limitations recite a corresponding structure (e.g. non-contacting dispensing device) to perform the claimed function (e.g. “for applying droplets of the viscous medium…onto which said component is to be mounted”, lines 3-5 of Claim 1). In this case, the corresponding structure of Nakamura can include the syringe (44) that performs the function of dispensing the viscous medium (solder) onto the workpiece. The syringe (44) is non-contacting because it never contacts the board. A side-by-side comparison below of applicants’ non-contacting dispensing (222) and Nakamura’s non-contacting dispensing device (44) show that they are nearly identical in shape and structure to perform the same function of dispensing.
PNG
media_image1.png
156
242
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
294
302
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Moreover, there is nothing recited in these limitations, or in Claim 10, that would exclude the use of the squeegee (42) and screen mask (13) of Nakamura. To what degree does the dispensing device have to be “non-contacting”? While applicants assert that the squeegee and screen mask contact the board in Nakamura’s Figure 8A and 8B, what about Figure 3? The squeegee and screen mask do not contact the board there, in which case they can be elements that are part of the “non-contacting dispensing device”. It appears that further limitations are needed in Claim 10 as to how the dispensing device is non-contacting.
In response to applicant's argument that any modification to Nakamura would change the principle operations of Nakamura’s printing device, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference (e.g. Wiegers, Akram or Okamoto) may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference (Nakamura); nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In this case, the secondary references of Wiegers, Akram and Okamoto are analogous to each other, as well as with Nakamura, as the teachings of each are concerned with dispensing a viscous medium (solder). To some degree they share the same principles operation but as noted in the above rejections, the secondary references would not change the overall structure or operation of Nakamura.
In the case of Wiegers, Wiegers’ structure is irrelevant, as Wiegers was merely cited for the teaching that a solder is a viscous medium.
In the case of Akram, Figure 17 shows a viscous medium (solder) being dispensed onto a local surface of a workpiece (20) where cameras (e.g. 140, 146) are used to obtain information regarding surface topography of a first surface of a component (e.g. 10) and a local surface of the workpiece (e.g. ¶ [0084]). Because Akram’s cameras are used for this purpose and are separate from any structures that perform any dispensing, adding them to the system of Nakamura would have no impact on the structures of the non-contacting dispensing device, or the surface measurement device of Nakamura. Therefore, to modify Nakamura in view of Akram does not change the principle operation of Nakamura.
In the case of Okamoto, Nakamura already determines respective amounts of deposits of the viscous medium (solder) formed on the local surface of the workpiece. Okamoto improves on this concept in which the respective amounts of deposits can correlate to heights of the deposits of the viscous medium, perhaps by including a measurement section (36, in Fig. 6) or a height measurement instrument (e.g. ¶ [0037]). Again, to add such a correlation of Okamoto to the system of Nakamura certainly improves Nakamura by determining more specific amounts of deposits (e.g. heights), with no impact to the structures of the non-contacting dispensing device, or the surface measurement device, of Nakamura.
Lastly, to say that the prior art is completely different than what is recited in Claim 10 is somewhat misleading. The applicants specification (e.g. page 10) states, in part:
This may (partially) melt the deposits, which may harden upon cooling to form permanent joints. Reflow may for example be used when the viscous medium comprises a solder paste.
This means that the deposits being dispensed by the applicants invention is certainly the same as the deposits being dispensed by the prior art. Not to mention the prior art is classified in the same CPC area, e.g. H05K3, as the applicants claimed invention, which means the prior art is in the same field of endeavor and/or solves the very same problems as the applicants.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner maintains the rejections from the previous office action, and/or has established a prima facie case of obviousness with the Nakamura in view Wiegers, Akram and Okamoto.
Applicants arguments to Claim 12 stand or fall together with Claim 10.
Conclusion
Applicants amendment filed as part the submission has 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 A. DEXTER TUGBANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4570. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, THOMAS J. HONG can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/A. DEXTER TUGBANG/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3729
1 Non-Final action, mailed on February 18, 2026.
Prosecution Insights