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 .
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 § 112
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
512
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 1, features of first extension part having a length which extends along the horizontal moving direction and extending along the moving direction and second extension part having a length which extends along the horizontal moving direction and extending along the moving direction (lines 7-10) are ambiguous because “length” being along the horizontal direction appears to be contradictory. Based on the description in the specification [0034] and fig. 2, the arrow shows horizontal moving direction (left to right). However, the longer direction (length) of the extension part 210 extends vertically into the solder tank, which is perpendicular to the horizontal moving direction. The first and second extension parts appear to have a shorter side which extends along the horizontal moving direction (see fig. 2 diagram below). In other words, “length” (extending side) of the extension part along the horizontal moving direction is inconsistent.
Consequently, the recited conflicting language concerning ‘length’ fails to clearly set forth the scope, rendering the claim indefinite. For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claims are taken to mean: the first extension part having a side which extends along the horizontal moving direction and the second extension part having a side which extends along the horizontal moving direction. Appropriate correction is requested.
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 Willemen (US 9272351).
Regarding claim 1, Willemen discloses a solder processing apparatus comprising: a storage tank (rectangular tank- fig. 1) storing molten solder 12; a moving main body 42 (support body- fig. 2); an extension part (extending plates) toward the molten solder in the storage tank (fig. 3A), the extension part having a first extension part/plate 46 provided at one end of the moving main body, and a second extension part/plate 46 provided at the other end of the moving main body in a horizontal moving direction 44, both the first and second extension part having a side extending in the horizontal moving direction 44 (figs. 2, 3A; col. 3, lines 54-56); and a moving unit 43/45 (includes linear drive & motor) coupled to the moving main body 42 and configured to reciprocate the first extension part and the second extension part in the horizontal moving direction (44- fig. 2) in the molten solder (col. 3, lines 40-53).
Willemen teaches that the extension parts/plates 46 are movable vertically to contact the molten solder 12 and skim the dross/residue to displace the dross/residue toward the suction apparatus for removal (col. 3, line 54 thru col. 4, line 7). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the extension plates 46 at least partially immersed in the molten solder in the tank of Willemen in order to ensure that all dross/residue is displaced from the molten solder toward the suction apparatus for removal. Examiner notes that at least partially immersing the parts/plates 46 even for a limited time meets the claim.
As to claim 2, the moving unit 43/45 (linear drive & motor) is well configured to moves the first extension part to a distance of 5 cm or less from an inner wall on one side of the storage tank and move the second extension part to a distance of 5 cm or less from the inner wall on the other side of the storage tank. Examiner notes this functional limitation of moving distance does not structurally limit the moving unit or extension parts.
As to claim 4, the moving unit moves the extension parts 46 (plates) vertically (arrow 48- fig. 2) into contact with the molten solder 12 (fig. 3A; col. 3, line 54 thru col. 4, line 7). 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 plates 46 at least partially immersed in the molten solder to a desired length, including 3 cm or more, in the tank of Willemen with a motivation to ensure that all dross/residue is displaced from the molten solder toward the suction apparatus for removal.
Claims 3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willemen as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Willemen (US 6578752, hereafter US ‘752).
As to claim 3, Willemen discloses that the extension part includes a plurality of extension members 46 (plates) wherein the plurality of extension members are provided in parallel along a normal direction (vertical direction) of a reciprocal movement 44 (fig. 2). Willemen is silent in terms of an interval between the extension members. Another patent by Willemen, US ‘752 is also directed to apparatus for separating dross in a wave solder processing (abstract). US ‘752 teaches 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). Similar to Willemen, US ‘752 shows support body 14 including extension parts/members 17-18 (knives) arranged very close to each other, wherein a gap between the parts appears to be 30 mm or less (fig. 1); the dimensioning of parts/knives is such that the dross floating on the solder is cut through and separated into solder and residue (col. 3, lines 41-47). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide closely spaced extension parts on the moving main body of Willemen in order to effectively cut through the dross and separate into solder and residue, as suggested by US ‘752.
As to claim 6, Willemen does not specifically disclose two supply ports and respective housing. However, such arrangement is known in the soldering art. US ‘752 (directed to apparatus for separating dross in a wave solder processing) discloses the soldering apparatus comprising a first supply port 2 and a second support port 3 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) - US ‘752 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 Willemen in order to provide sufficient solder waves to cover the conveying substrate.
As to claim 7, US ‘752 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 Willemen & US ‘752 in order to avoid blank or unsoldered spots on the conveying PCB/substrate.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in light of new grounds of rejection set forth above. Examiner requests correction(s) concerning the 112 rejection. In terms of prior art, previous 102 rejection under Willemen has been withdrawn due to the amendment and modified 103 rejection above addresses the matter specifically challenged in the arguments.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/22/25, 1/16/26 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment 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.
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