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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/9/25 has been entered.
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.
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 limitations are: “a drive unit configured to” in claim 1 and “a first drive unit configured to” and “a second drive unit configured to” in claim 2.
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 § 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, 2, 4, 5, 18, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Pachschwoll (US 4,540,114) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2019/0039159 A1), Nakane et al. (JP 2019-141862 A), Okano et al. (JP 63-281768 A), and Roland et al. (FR 2638051 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Pachschwoll teaches:
A jet soldering apparatus [soldering system (23); see figures 1-3 and annotated figure 3 below] comprising:
a first housing [first housing, left wall (11b); annotated figure 3];
a first supply port [first supply port (11a)] provided on the first housing and configured to provide first molten solder;
a second housing [second housing, right wall, (17b)]; and
a second supply port [second supply port (17a)] provided on the second housing and configured to provide second molten solder, the jet soldering apparatus being configured to mix the first molten solder and the second molten solder so as to obtain mixed molten solder [see figure 3];
a conveyance unit configured to convey a substrate [conveying path (26) intrinsically comprises a conveying unit in order to be a conveying path]; and
a drive unit [pumps (13, 25)] configured to provide the mixed molten solder such that an upper surface of the mixed molten solder is not positioned below a lower end of the conveyance rail in an entire length region along a substrate conveyance direction between the first supply port and the second supply port such that the mixed molten solder is not separated from the substrate conveyed along the conveyance rail by the conveyance unit in an entire area between the first supply port and the second supply port [Note the claimed drive unit is two pumps (141, 146) as noted on page 9 of the specification. Thus, since the claimed structure for performing the claimed function is identical to that of Pachschwoll then the Pachschwoll pumps are also capable of performing any claimed function. Also, Okano teaches controlling the pumps to affect the flow rates; page of translation.],
wherein:
the first supply port [first supply port (11a)] has a plurality of openings [nozzles (11)] arranged in a row;
the second supply port [second supply port (17a)] is a only one slit-shaped opening [nozzle opening (17c)];
a place [place (40)] where the mixed molten solder falls back into a solder supply is not provided between the first supply port and the second supply port along the substrate conveyance direction [see annotated figure 3];
a distance (this is distance “G” as noted in the disclosure) between the first supply port and the second supply port along the substrate conveyance direction is smaller than a width (this width is “Z1” as noted in the disclosure), along the substrate conveyance direction, of a single row of openings/nozzles (i.e. G < Z1) [the thickness of wall (18) is less than the width nozzles (11); see annotated figure 3];
the distance (G) between the first supply port and the second supply port along the substrate conveyance direction is smaller than a width (this width is “Z2” as noted in the disclosure) of the only one slit shaped opening along the substrate conveyance direction (i.e. G < Z2) [the thickness of wall (18) is less than the width of nozzle opening (17c); see annotated figure 3]; and
PNG
media_image1.png
350
685
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pachschwoll does not teach:
the conveyance unit including a conveyance rail;
the plurality of openings arranged in a plurality of rows along the substrate conveyance direction; and
a width (Z2) of the only one slit-shaped opening along the substrate conveyance direction is smaller than a width (Z1), along the substrate conveyance direction, between: (i) the furthest upstream point of the furthest upstream opening of the plurality of openings of the first supply port; and (ii) the furthest downstream point of the furthest downstream opening of the plurality of openings of the first supply port (i.e. Z2< Z1).
Concerning the rail and the use thereof:
While Pachschwoll teaches the apparatus comprises conveyor path (26) he is silent as to any mechanism for achieving this.
Suzuki teaches jet soldering apparatus (1) that comprises transfer rails (13) on which the substrate (5) is carried to the solder nozzles (30,40); figure 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Suzuki transfer rails into Pachschwoll because this is a known means of conveying, minus any unexpected results.
Furthermore, should the applicant prove the prior art device is still not configured to perform the claimed function(s), Nakane teaches a wave soldering device wherein substrate transport mechanism (15) has a lifting mechanism (not shown) that moves the pair of transport rails in the vertical direction and the solder wave shape is controlled in order to control the distance between the workpiece and solder wave; 0015, 0018, 0040-0042.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Nakane in order to be able to further control the distance between the workpiece and solder wave as desired.
Concerning the plurality of rows of openings:
Note that Pachschwoll teaches horizontal nozzle plate (11c) is wider than nozzle opening (17c); see annotated figure 3].
Okano teaches a jet soldering apparatus wherein nozzles (32) and (72) have no place where the mixed solder falls back into the solder supply therebetween, nozzle (32) is a single opening, and nozzle (72) comprises porous plate (71) having a plurality of openings in rows; wherein the openings span a distance wider than the gap between nozzles (72) and (32), i.e. G<Z1, and the openings span is larger than that of nozzle (32); i.e. Z2<Z1; figure 3.
Suzuki teaches primary jet nozzle (30) comprises solder flow forming plate (32) which is a flat plate being the same size as jet injection opening (31) and is provided with a plurality of jet injection holes (32b) in four rows from which the molten solder (S) is stably injected to a desired height with strong energy; 0061 and figure 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate plates like that of Okano and Suzuki; i.e. plates having arrayed openings, since they are well-known soldering plates, to increase the width of the first supply port, and/or in order to stably inject molten solder to a desired height with strong energy, minus any unexpected results.
Concerning Z2 < Z1:
As noted above Okano teaches Z2<Z1.
Roland teaches a wave soldering apparatus wherein the width of second nozzle (21) is less than the combined span of nozzles (8, 9); i.e. Z2<Z1, figure 1.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that when incorporating the nozzles plates, as stated above, to replace nozzle plate (11C) with a plate having arrayed openings to make the span of the openings wider than that of nozzle opening (17c) since this is a known option to control the flow of solder, and/or to control the size of the solder wave, minus any unexpected results.
Concerning any claimed results, materials, and/or functions:
Since the prior art apparatus, i.e. the apparatus based on the combined prior art references above, is structurally identical to the claimed apparatus, it is the examiner’s position that the prior art apparatus is capable of achieving any claimed function with any claimed material to achieve any claimed result; such the conveyance unit and drive unit being configured. This reasoning applies to any claim below where functional language, material worked upon, and/or a result is claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Pachschwoll teaches:
a first drive unit [pump (13)] configured to give a driving force to the first molten solder; and
a second drive unit [pump (25)] configured to give a driving force to the second molten solder.
Regarding claim 4, Pachschwoll does not teach:
wherein the width (Z2) of the only one slit-shaped opening along the substrate conveyance direction is 1/3 or less of the width (Z1) along the substrate conveyance direction, between: (i) the furthest upstream point of the furthest upstream opening of the plurality of openings of the first supply port; and (ii) the furthest downstream point of the furthest downstream opening of the plurality of openings of the first supply port (Z2 < 1/3 Z1).
However as noted above, Okano teaches the distance spanned by the porous plate openings is greater than the distance of opening of nozzle (32); figure 3.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make this difference in distance any desired amount, including 1/3 less, to control the flow of solder, and/or to limit the size of the solder wave, minus any unexpected results.
Regarding claim 5,
wherein an amount of the first molten solder is 0.8 times or more and 1.2 times or less of an amount of the second molten solder.
Since the prior art soldering apparatus comprises individual pumps for each nozzle and the prior art soldering apparatus is structurally identical to that claimed then it naturally flows that the prior art soldering apparatus is capable of being used in this manner. Note that Okano teaches controlling the pumps to affect the flow rates; page 3 of translation.
Regarding claim 18, Pachschwoll does not teach:
an upstream adjusting part which is adjacent to the first supply port and configured to adjust an amount of the first molten solder, the upstream adjusting part being arcuate or oblique with respect to the first housing; or
a downstream adjusting part which is adjacent to the second supply port and configured to adjust an amount of the second molten solder, the downstream adjusting part being arcuate or oblique with respect to the second housing.
Suzuki teaches jet soldering apparatus (1) comprises oblique downstream forming portion (66) that forms the flow of the molten solder to change a jet injection width; 0090.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Suzuki downstream forming portion into Pachschwoll in order to be able to control the height of the solder wave or to change a jet injection width.
Regarding claim 24, Pachschwoll teaches:
wherein, in the first supply port, includes at least two openings of the plurality of openings [see figure 1].
Pachschwoll does not teach:
wherein, in the first supply port:
the plurality of rows includes four rows; and
each of the four rows includes eleven openings of the plurality of openings.
Okano teaches using porous plate (71) as a nozzle which has several rows, 7-8 rows, of openings.
Suzuki teaches primary jet nozzle (30) comprises solder flow forming plate (32) which is a flat plate provided with a plurality of jet injection holes (32b) in four rows from which molten solder (S) is stably injected to a desired height with strong energy; 0061 and figure 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate plates like that of Okano and Suzuki since they are well-known soldering plates or in order to stably inject molten solder to a desired height with strong energy, minus any unexpected results.
As for the number of rows and openings, Suzuki teaches having four rows. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have as many rows and openings as desired in order to control the flow of solder and/or to span a desired width, minus any unexpected results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/9/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues,
“Pachschwoll fails to teach that the first supply port has a plurality of openings arranged in a plurality of rows along the substrate conveyance direction and the second supply port is only one slit-shaped opening (above-noted limitation (B)).
Furthermore, Pachschwoll fails to teach that a distance [(G)] between the first supply port and the second supply port and a width of the slit-shaped opening [(Z2)] along the substrate conveyance direction are respectively smaller than a width [(Z1)], along the substrate conveyance direction, between: (i) the furthest upstream point of the furthest upstream opening of the plurality of openings of the first supply port; and (ii) the furthest downstream point of the furthest downstream opening of the plurality of openings of the first supply port (above-noted limitation (C)) since FV3 and W2 are respectively larger than Wi in Pachschw5ll FIG. 3 (reproduced and annotated above).”
The examiner agrees Pachschwoll does not teach the first supply port has an arrayed plurality of openings and the width of the slit-shaped opening (Z2) being less than the width of the plurality of openings (Z1). However, Pachschwoll was not relied upon to teach this. Pachschwoll teaches distance (G) is less than (Z1) and (Z2); see annotated figure 3.
The applicant argues,
“Okano teaches that "Fig. 3 shows a third embodiment of the present invention, which differs from the second embodiment shown in Fig. 2 in that a primary nozzle 72 equipped with a porous plate 71 is integrally disposed on the carry-in side of the first nozzle 32, and a pump 73 is provided. The numerous protruding jet waves 14 jetted from the porous plate 71 of this primary nozzle 72 are primary waves, while the jet waves from the first nozzle 32 and second nozzle 42 are secondary waves" (emphasis added). Consequently, it would have been nonobvious to adopt only the second nozzle 42. Without hindsight reconstruction, both the first nozzle 32 and the second nozzle 42 would have been applied to the apparatus of Pachschwoll.
If both the first nozzle 32 and second nozzle 42 of Okano were applied to Pachschwoll, the resultant combination would fail to meet the limitation that the second supply port is only one slit-shaped opening (above-noted limitation (B)), or above-noted limitations (C) and (D) since the width of W2(Z2) becomes larger.”
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art looking at Okano would appreciate the use of the porous plate next to a single slit nozzle and even more so now that Roland has been applied to further teach this.
The applicant argues,
“Suzuki generally teaches a secondary jet nozzle 40 and a jet injection opening 41 (see, e.g., Suzuki FIG. 4(B) reproduced below). However, Suzuki fails to teach that the second supply port is only one slit-shaped opening (above-noted limitation (B)).
The term "slit" connotes "a straight, narrow cut or opening in something" (see, e.g.
PNG
media_image2.png
17
360
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(emphasis added).”
Note that “narrow” is a relative term since it is not defined by the applicant and “slit” is made even more ambiguous by the use of “shaped”. Therefore, opening (41) can be seen as “slit-shaped”. Even so, this is moot since Suzuki was not relied upon to teach the claimed “only one slit-shaped opening”.
The applicant argues,
“As noted above, independent claim 1 recites that G < Z2, and Z2 is a width of "a straight, narrow cut or opening" based on above-noted limitation (D) which recites that the distance between the first supply port and the second supply port along the substrate conveyance direction is smaller than the width of the slit-shaped opening along the substrate conveyance direction.
Pachschwoll fails to teach a narrow opening, as claimed. Furthermore, it would have been nonobvious to use only one slit-shaped opening as the main soldering nozzle 17, since the main soldering nozzle 17 provides the main solder wave 15.”
Pachschwoll clearly teaches nozzle opening (17c) is a single “slit-shaped” opening because narrow is a relative term and “slit” is made even more ambiguous by the use of “shaped”.
Conclusion
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