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 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/26/26 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
As noted in previous office action, present claims are drawn to an apparatus. "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (MPEP 2114). Functional limitations concerns operation of the apparatus. For instance, moves the extension part to distance of 5 cm or less…or immerse to a length of 3 cm or more (claims 2-3) are functional limitation which do not structurally contribute to the apparatus.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antonevich (US 4007119).
Regarding claim 1, Antonevich discloses a solder processing apparatus (abstract, figs. 1-3) comprising: a storage tank 10 (fig. 1) storing molten solder 11; a moving main body 15/16 extending in a length direction, which is parallel to a horizontal moving direction along which the moving main body moves; a plurality of extension parts 13-14 (blades) extending from the moving main body and being at least partially immersed in the molten solder (see fig. 1 below); the extension parts having a first extension blade 13 provided close to one end of the moving main body, and a second extension blade 14 provided at close to other end of the moving main body in the horizontal moving direction; and a moving unit (includes cranks/shafts & motor; col. 2, lines 21-33) coupled to the moving main body and configured to move the first and second extension blades in the horizontal moving direction in the molten solder using drive motor 24 (col. 2, lines 34-45), and wherein each extension blade 13-14 is a plate-shaped member having a length which extends vertically into the molten solder and a width
PNG
media_image1.png
386
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
extending along the horizontal moving direction (fig. 1). Antonevich teaches that the extension blades 13-14 move to the right carrying the surface dross layer between them toward the right, moved back to the left, and this cyclical movement thereby piling up the dross & contaminants for ready removal and maintaining general clean surface (col. 2, lines 34-45). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have the extension blades reciprocate in right-left direction along the horizontal moving direction in the molten solder in the tank of Antonevich with a motivation to ensure that all dross/contaminants are effectively displaced from the molten solder toward the removal side.
As to claim 2, the moving unit in Antonevich (crank shafts & motor) is well configured to move the first extension blade to a distance of 5 cm or less from an inner wall on one side of the storage tank and move the second extension blade to a distance of 5 cm or less from the inner wall on the other side of the storage tank (col. 2, lines 34-45). Examiner notes this functional limitation of moving distance does not structurally limit the moving unit or extension parts.
As to claim 4, Antonevich discloses the extension parts 46 (blades) immersed in the molten solder 12 (fig. 1). Examiner also notes this functional limitation of immersing depth/length concerns moving operation and does not structurally limit the extension part (see Claim Interpretation above). A person of ordinary skill in the art of would have been found it obvious to have the extension blades immersed in the molten solder to a desired length, including 3 cm or more, in the tank of Antonevich in order to ensure that all dross/residue is collected from the molten solder surface for removal.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antonevich as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Willemen (US 6578752).
As to claim 6, Antonevich does not specifically disclose two supply ports and respective housing. However, such arrangement is known in the soldering art. Willemen is also directed to apparatus for separating dross in a wave solder processing (abstract). Willemen discloses a soldering vessel 1 connected to a separating vessel 8, which serves to separate the dross floating on the solder (fig. 1; col. 2, lines 47-62). Willemen teaches the soldering apparatus comprising a first supply port 2 and a second support port 3 that are configured to provide molten solder; and wherein a first housing (sidewall) on which the first support port is provided and a second housing (sidewall) on which a second support port is provided, the housings being integrated, and a place where molten solder falls is not between the first supply port and the second suppl port (fig. 1) - Willemen teaches this setup is generally known in the art (col. 2, lines 37-47). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate first & second supply ports with associated housing in the apparatus of Antonevich in order to provide sufficient solder waves to cover a conveying board or substrate for soldering.
As to claim 7, Willemen shows that the molten solder supplied from the first supply port and the second supply port is mixed (fig. 1). Examiner maintains previous official notice with respect to having a conveyance rail for carrying a substrate since such mechanism is conventional in the wave soldering art. Concerning positioning upper surface of the molten solder, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to maintain the solder wave in an entire length region along the substrate conveyance direction between the first supply port and the second supply port in order to ensure that all components/pins receive necessary solder for joining to the circuit board substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have the surface of the molten solder not drop below a lower end of a conveyance rail in the processing apparatus of Antonevich & Willemen in order to avoid blank or unsoldered spots on a conveying PCB/substrate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 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.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1 have been fully considered but are moot in light of new grounds of rejection set forth above, which now relies on newly applied reference of Antonevich. Examiner also notes that claim 3 should be incorporated into claim 1 to advance prosecution to allowance.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVANG R PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3636. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of Applicant. If Applicant wishes to communicate via email, a written authorization form must be filed by Applicant: Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The form may be filed via the Patent Center and can be found using the document description Internet Communications, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms. In limited circumstances, the Applicant may make an oral authorization for Internet communication. See MPEP § 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. For more information, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For questions, technical issues or troubleshooting, please contact the Patent Electronic Business Center at ebc@uspto.gov or 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DEVANG R PATEL/
Primary Examiner, AU 1735
Prosecution Insights