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 Status
Claims 1-20 are pending:
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I and Species B (Fig3B) in the reply filed on 05/06/2026 is acknowledged.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Applicant indicated via interview that claims 1-14 correspond to Species B. This indication was required in order to complete the requirements to respond to the restriction requirement. The corresponding claims to Species B was not provided in the remarks dated 05/06/2026.
Claim 15-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group/Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/06/2026.
Claim 15-20
Correspond to Group II
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/05/2023, 05/06/2026 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1, 8, 10, 11 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17, 17, 17, 19 of copending Application No. 18/124,154 (reference application), respectively. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Please see the comparison table below; the underlined limitations indicate recitations that do not patentably correspond to the other claim set.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application 18/124,147
Copending Application 18/124,154
Claim 1
Claim 17
A system for replacing solder balls of an electronic package, the electronic package comprising an array of solder balls soldered to a corresponding array of seats located on a surface of the electronic package, the system comprising:
a first heater assembly configured to receive the electronic package and collectively heat the array of solder balls to melt the solder balls;
a solder removal tool configured to apply suction to each one of the melted solder balls to thereby remove the melted solder ball from the corresponding seat;
a mask comprising an array of apertures arranged to correspond to the array of seats, the mask configured to be positioned over the electronic package such that the array of apertures are aligned with the array of seats, each one of the array of apertures configured to receive a respective replacement solder ball and thereby locate the replacement solder ball on a corresponding one of the array of seats; and
a second heater assembly configured to receive the electronic package and collectively heat and reflow the replacement solder balls to form a metallurgical bond with the seats.
Claim 1
A method for replacing solder balls of an electronic package, the electronic package comprising an array of solder balls soldered to a corresponding array of seats located on a surface of the electronic package, the method comprising:
collectively heating the array of solder balls to melt the array of solder balls;
removing each respective melted solder ball of the array of solder balls from the corresponding seat by application of suction to the respective melted solder ball utilizing a solder removal tool including a hollow needle coupled to a suction source, the hollow needle being positioned over the respective melted solder ball such that the suction source applies suction via the hollow needle to suck the respective melted solder ball completely through the hollow needle and into a collection chamber within the solder removal tool;
providing a plurality of replacement solder balls;
for each seat of the array of seats, positioning a corresponding one of the replacement solder balls on the respective seat to form an array of seated replacement solder balls; and
collectively heating the array of seated replacement solder balls such that the replacement solder balls reflow and form a metallurgical bond with the seats.
Claim 17
The method of claim 1 wherein
positioning the corresponding one of the replacement solder balls on the respective seat to form an array of seated replacement solder balls comprises providing a mask, the mask including an array of apertures arranged to correspond to the array of seats, each aperture of the array of apertures sized to receive only a single one of the plurality of replacement solder balls,
positioning the mask over the electronic package such that the array of apertures are aligned with the array of seats,
disposing one of the plurality of replacement solder balls in a corresponding one of the array of apertures such that the replacement solder ball is located on a corresponding one of the array of seats, and
repeating disposing one of the plurality of replacement solder balls in the corresponding one of the array of apertures until each aperture in the array of apertures has received a corresponding one of the plurality of replacement solder balls.
Claim 8
Claim 17
The system of claim 1
wherein the solder removal tool comprises a hollow needle coupled to a suction source so as to generate suction at a tip of the hollow needle in use, the solder removal tool configured to selectively trigger generation of suction at the tip of the hollow needle and to heat the hollow needle in use.
Claim 1
A method for replacing solder balls of an electronic package, the electronic package comprising an array of solder balls soldered to a corresponding array of seats located on a surface of the electronic package, the method comprising:
collectively heating the array of solder balls to melt the array of solder balls;
removing each respective melted solder ball of the array of solder balls from the corresponding seat by application of suction to the respective melted solder ball utilizing a solder removal tool including a hollow needle coupled to a suction source, the hollow needle being positioned over the respective melted solder ball such that the suction source applies suction via the hollow needle to suck the respective melted solder ball completely through the hollow needle and into a collection chamber within the solder removal tool;
providing a plurality of replacement solder balls;
for each seat of the array of seats, positioning a corresponding one of the replacement solder balls on the respective seat to form an array of seated replacement solder balls; and
collectively heating the array of seated replacement solder balls such that the replacement solder balls reflow and form a metallurgical bond with the seats.
Claim 17
The method of claim 1 wherein
positioning the corresponding one of the replacement solder balls on the respective seat to form an array of seated replacement solder balls comprises providing a mask, the mask including an array of apertures arranged to correspond to the array of seats, each aperture of the array of apertures sized to receive only a single one of the plurality of replacement solder balls,
positioning the mask over the electronic package such that the array of apertures are aligned with the array of seats,
disposing one of the plurality of replacement solder balls in a corresponding one of the array of apertures such that the replacement solder ball is located on a corresponding one of the array of seats, and
repeating disposing one of the plurality of replacement solder balls in the corresponding one of the array of apertures until each aperture in the array of apertures has received a corresponding one of the plurality of replacement solder balls.
Claim 10
Claim 17
The system of claim 1 wherein
the apertures in the array of apertures of the mask are uniform in size.
Claim 17
The method of claim 1 wherein
positioning the corresponding one of the replacement solder balls on the respective seat to form an array of seated replacement solder balls comprises providing a mask, the mask including an array of apertures arranged to correspond to the array of seats, each aperture of the array of apertures sized to receive only a single one of the plurality of replacement solder balls,
positioning the mask over the electronic package such that the array of apertures are aligned with the array of seats,
disposing one of the plurality of replacement solder balls in a corresponding one of the array of apertures such that the replacement solder ball is located on a corresponding one of the array of seats, and
repeating disposing one of the plurality of replacement solder balls in the corresponding one of the array of apertures until each aperture in the array of apertures has received a corresponding one of the plurality of replacement solder balls.
Claim 11
Claim 19
The system of claim 1 wherein
the mask comprises a perimeter wall substantially surrounding the array of apertures, the perimeter wall comprising an opening configured to allow passage therethrough of solder balls corresponding to the size of the apertures.
Claim 19
The method of claim 17 wherein
the mask comprises a perimeter wall substantially surrounding the array of apertures, and disposing one of the plurality of replacement solder balls in a corresponding one of the array of apertures comprises disposing the plurality of replacement solder balls on a surface of the mask inwards of the perimeter wall, and inclining the mask such that the plurality of replacement solder balls roll over the surface of the mask until each one of the array of apertures receives a corresponding one of the plurality of replacement solder balls and, the perimeter wall substantially confining the plurality of replacement solder balls to inwards of the perimeter wall.
Drawings
Figure 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Fig2 is a continuation of the arrangement of Fig1
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
“first heater assembly” as first recited in claim 1
Corresponding structure
“hot plate assembly” as informed by P3L5, see further 112f interpretation below
Or equivalents
“solder removal tool” as first recited in claim 1
Corresponding structure
Tool 400 shown in Fig11-12
Or equivalents
“second heater assembly” as first recited in claim 1
Corresponding structure
Oven, as informed by P8L7-8
Or equivalents
“hot plate assembly” as first recited in claim 5
Corresponding structure
Electrically powered hot plate, as informed by assembly 200 of Fig10
“clamping assembly” as first recited in claim 6
Corresponding structure
Support assembly 300, as informed by Fig8-10 and P15-16
Or equivalents
“inner/outer clamping element” as first recited in claim 7
Corresponding structure
Clamping jaw parts, as informed by elements 301/302 of Fig8-10
Or equivalents
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 Objections
Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3-4, 8-9
Amend recitations to provide the naming convention of “a hollow fluxing needle” and “a hollow solder needle” to improve clarity.
While the instant recitations do not rise to the level of an issue of indefiniteness, the above naming convention would improve clarity to the reader and avoid invoking an issue of indefiniteness in the event that both hollow needle recitations are amended in the same claim and/or same claim dependency ‘branch’.
Claim 5
Remove extra period in line 1, typographical error
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7, 11-12 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.
Claim 7
L2-3, “substantially” renders the claim indefinite, as the metes and bounds of the claim are unknown, as it is unknown what to what degree of variation is or is not within the scope of “substantially”, as two of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably come to two different scope determinations as the claim language, and the specification, fails to provide guidance to those of skill to come to a uniform determination of the claim scope.
Claim 11
L1-2, “substantially” renders the claim indefinite, as the metes and bounds of the claim are unknown, as it is unknown what to what degree of variation is or is not within the scope of “substantially”, as two of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably come to two different scope determinations as the claim language, and the specification, fails to provide guidance to those of skill to come to a uniform determination of the claim scope.
Claim 12
L1-3, “substantially” renders the claim indefinite, as the metes and bounds of the claim are unknown, as it is unknown what to what degree of variation is or is not within the scope of “substantially”, as two of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably come to two different scope determinations as the claim language, and the specification, fails to provide guidance to those of skill to come to a uniform determination of the claim scope.
Dependent claims are rejected based on dependency
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ooroku (US 6,413,850) in view of Kee (US 2004/0056078).
Claim 1
Ooroku discloses:
“A system for … solder balls of an electronic package, the electronic package (object 100) comprising an array of solder balls (solder balls 140) soldered to a corresponding array of seats (best seen Fig13, solder bumps 160 are bonded solder balls 140 on pads 101 of object 100) located on a surface of the electronic package (object 100 overall best seen Fig3/13), the system comprising:
…
a mask (mask 220, use best seen Fig4-6) comprising an array of apertures (apertures 221a) arranged to correspond to the array of seats (C8L66-67, correspond to pads 101), the mask configured to be positioned over the electronic package such that the array of apertures are aligned with the array of seats (C8L66-67, Fig4-6/9-10, mask 220 positioned over stage 310 to be transferred to object 100), each one of the array of apertures configured to receive a respective replacement solder ball and thereby locate the replacement solder ball on a corresponding one of the array of seats (Fig4-6/9-10, each mask 220 aperture 221a receives a solder ball 140, which is then located on pads 101 of object 100); and
a second heater assembly (Fig1, heating step 14; C14L7-18, reflow furnace) configured to receive the electronic package (C14L7-18, reflow furnace) and collectively heat and reflow the replacement solder balls to form a metallurgical bond with the seats (C14L7-18, reflow furnace heats and bonds solder balls to object 100).”
Ooroku is silent to removing prior melted solder balls from the electronic package with a first heater and solder removal tool as claimed.
Kee teaches:
“A system for replacing solder balls of an electronic package (best seen Fig4-16), the electronic package (Para58, best seen Fig2/3/5, workpiece 40) comprising an array of solder balls (Para58, best seen Fig2/3/5, solder balls 50A/B/C) soldered to a corresponding array of seats (Para58, best seen Fig2/35, seats 62) located on a surface of the electronic package (best seen Fig3/5), the system comprising:
a first heater assembly (Para69, best seen Fig4, heater 90; Para66 optional laser heater) configured to receive the electronic package (arrangement between heater 90 and workpiece 40 best seen Fig4) and collectively heat the array of solder balls to melt the solder balls (Para69, first heating step);
a solder removal tool (best seen Fig4, capillary tube 42) configured to apply suction (Para68/69) to each one of the melted solder balls to thereby remove the melted solder ball from the corresponding seat (Fig5-7 shows the removal of a solder ball 50A using tube 42 after heating by heater 90);
…”
Kee further teaches (Para25-27) that a defective solder ball has a high difficulty in testing and use of the workpiece.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Ooroku to add the defective solder ball arrangement/method as taught by Kee, as Kee teaches that the removal of defective solder balls from a workpiece provides the advantage of reducing/avoiding future difficulties in use of the workpiece, and the resulting arrangement/method has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Ooroku with a first process/arrangement of removing old/damaged/defective solder balls from a workpiece as taught by Kee to set-up a fresh workpiece for the disclosed arrangement/method of Ooroku, and such a combination of Ooroku and Kee provides expanded operation for the resulting arrangement to be able to account for and correct defective solder balls.
Claim 8
The combination of Ooroku and Kee discloses: “The system of claim 1 wherein the solder removal tool comprises a hollow needle (Kee: tube 42) coupled to a suction source (Kee: best seen Fig4/1/17, tube 42 coupled to vacuum source 46 via chamber 56) so as to generate suction at a tip of the hollow needle in use (Kee: Para68/69), the solder removal tool configured to selectively trigger generation of suction at the tip of the hollow needle (Kee: Para69/70, Fig5-7) and to heat the hollow needle in use (Kee: Para69, first heating step; Fig4, heater 90).”
Claim 9
The combination of Ooroku and Kee discloses: “The system of claim 8 wherein the hollow needle (Kee: tube 42) has an arcuate profile (see annotated oval region of Kee Fig4 below, tube 42 has an arcuate profile) and is crimp-free over a length of the hollow needle (Kee: Fig4, tube 42 has no crimps), the hollow needle extending between a base and the tip (Kee: Fig4, tube 42 has a base at body 54 and a tip at annotated oval region interfacing with solder ball 50), a tangent to the tip of the hollow needle (Kee: Fig4, see annotated dashed lines showing the extremes of a tangent from the tip of tube 42, the tip tangent extends across a full 180 degree spread from the left to right side of solder ball 50) deviating from a tangent to the base of the hollow needle (Kee: Fig4, vertical line extending from body 54) by an acute angle (Kee: Fig4, the tip tangent extends across a full 180 degree spread from the left to right side of solder ball 50, resulting in all possible relative angles between the dashed tip tangent and the vertical base tangent line), the acute angle having a value in a range of one of between 15 degrees and 45 degrees, between 25 degrees and 45 degrees, or between 35 degrees and 45 degrees (Kee: Fig4, the tip tangent extends across a full 180 degree spread from the left to right side of solder ball 50, resulting in all possible relative angles between the dashed tip tangent and the vertical base tangent line).”
PNG
media_image1.png
160
342
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
168
342
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 10
The combination of Ooroku and Kee discloses: “The system of claim 1 wherein the apertures in the array of apertures of the mask are uniform in size (Ooroku: best seen Fig5/6, apertures 221a).”
Claim 11
The combination of Ooroku and Kee discloses: “The system of claim 1 wherein the mask comprises a perimeter wall substantially surrounding the array of apertures (Ooroku: best seen Fig4-6, frame walls 230/222), the perimeter wall comprising an opening configured to allow passage therethrough of solder balls corresponding to the size of the apertures (Ooroku: best seen Fig4-6, open tops of frame walls 230/222 to allow the dropping of solder balls 140 to flow to apertures 221a).”
Claim 12
The combination of Ooroku and Kee discloses: “The system of claim 11 the mask further comprising a substantially planar plate (Ooroku: best seen Fig4-6, stencil 221), the array of apertures defined in the substantially planar plate (Ooroku: best seen Fig4-6, stencil 221 apertures 221a), the perimeter wall coupled to a peripheral region of the substantially planar plate (Ooroku: best seen Fig4-6, frame walls 230/222 couple to stencil 221).”
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ooroku (US 6,413,850) in view of Kee (US 2004/0056078), and in further view of Ankrom (US 4,840,305).
Claim 2
The combination of Ooroku and Kee discloses the arrangement of claim 1.
The combination of Ooroku and Kee discloses is silent to a preliminary heating step as claimed.
Ankrom teaches (Fig11; C9L6-16) that it is known in the art to bake a board that is to have flux and solder applied to have a preliminary baking step of “a minimum of approximately four hours up to five hours at 121 [degree symbol] C., [+/-] 5 [degree symbol]”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ooroku and Kee to add the known in the art preliminary baking step of a board prior to applying flux and solder as taught by Ankrom, as Ankrom teaches that such a preliminary baking step is a known in the art process step for a workpiece board prior to applying flux and solder, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the combination of Ooroku and Kee with a working and known process step of preliminary baking of the workpiece board as taught by Ankrom.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ooroku (US 6,413,850) in view of Kee (US 2004/0056078), and in further view of Zhang (CN 201596837).
Claim 3
The combination of Ooroku and Kee discloses: “The system of claim 1 further comprising a fluxing assembly (Ooroku: Fig1, adhesive supply step 2; Fig2-3, flux 120; C8L21-52), the fluxing assembly including a reservoir of a water soluble fluxing agent (Ooroku: flux supply unit 520 supplies flux 120, C14L52-56, flux is water soluble) and …, the fluxing assembly configured to selectively apply the fluxing agent to the electronic package (Ooroku: flux mask 200 has apertures 201a that selectively correspond to pads 101), ...”
The combination of Ooroku and Kee is silent to a hollow needle with a fluxing agent reservoir cartridge providing the flux to the arrangement, nor any particular structure to deliver the flux into flux mask 200 of Ooroku.
Zhang teaches (Fig1/2; Para13, flux cartridge 4, flux tube 4 discharges towards nozzle 5) that it is known in the art supply flux in a cartridge that is attached to an angled hollow tube, see annotated oval region.
PNG
media_image3.png
324
350
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the prior art to select a known means for providing flux to an arrangement, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have to make such a selection in order to practice the disclosure of the combination of Ooroku and Kee, and Zhang teaches that it is known in the art to supply flux in a cartridge that is attached to an angled hollow tube that faces the desired location to discharge/provide the flux, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the combination of Ooroku and Kee with a working and known in the art flux suppling structure as taught by Zhang.
Claim 4
The modified combination of Ooroku and Kee by the teachings of Zhang discloses: “The system of claim 3 wherein the hollow needle has an arcuate profile (Zhang: flux tube is arcuately bent) and is crimp-free over a length of the hollow needle (Zhang: flux tube is crimp-free) and the hollow needle extends between a base and a tip (Zhang: flux tube has a base and tip), the base coupled to the reservoir of the fluxing agent (Zhang: Fig1, base of flux tube to coupled to flux cartridge 4), a tangent to the tip of the hollow needle deviating from a tangent to the base of the hollow needle by an acute angle (Zhang: annotated Fig1, acute angle between the dashed lines of the tangent of the tip/base of flux tube), the acute angle having a value in a range of one of between 15 degrees and 45 degrees, between 25 degrees and 45 degrees, or between 35 degrees and 45 degrees (Zhang: annotated Fig1, relative angle between dashed lines of the tip/base of flux tube is fairly shown to be 45 degrees, which corresponds to each claimed angle range).”
PNG
media_image4.png
324
350
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 5-7, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ooroku (US 6,413,850) in view of Kee (US 2004/0056078), and in further view of Littau (US 5,800,686).
Claim 5
The combination of Ooroku and Kee discloses the arrangement of Claim 1.
The combination of Ooroku and Kee discloses is silent to the use of a hot plate to perform the first heater step, and is silent to the particular temperatures applied in the heating step. The combination of Ooroku and Kee is silent to any particular fixing structure/arrangement of the object to stage as claimed.
Littau teaches: “wherein the first heater assembly comprises a hot plate assembly (Fig3/5/6, heater plate 18, substrate/wafer 24). configured to be heated to a predetermined temperature of one of at least 250°C, at least 260°C, at least 270°C, at least 280°C, at least 290°C, or at least 300°C (C6L1-9, heater plate 18 is heated to a processing temperature between 250-650 degrees Celsius).”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the prior art to select a particular and known in the art fixing/mounting arrangement for the object of the combination of Ooroku and Kee, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have to make such a selection in order to practice the disclosure of the combination of Ooroku and Kee, and Littau teaches that it is known in the art to directly mount the wafer/substrate to the recessed upper surface of a heater plate via chuck pins, and that such a mounting arrangement provides the further advantage of improved wafer edge protection during processing, Littau further teaches that such an arrangement and application of a heater plate provides known in the art processing temperature for a substrate/wafer, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the combination of Ooroku and Kee with a working and known in the art substrate/wafer mounting arrangement as taught by Littau, and a working and known in the art wafer/substrate heating arrangement via a heating plate with known processing temperatures.
Claim 6
The combination of Ooroku and Kee discloses the arrangement of Claim 1. The combination of Ooroku and Kee further discloses that (Ooroku: C8L28-29, best seen Fig3) object 100 is fixed to stage 280.
The combination of Ooroku and Kee is silent to any particular fixing structure/arrangement of the object to stage as claimed.
Littau teaches (best seen Fig6/5) that it is known in the art to fix a substrate/wafer 24 to a recessed heater plate upper surface 26 locked in via chuck pins 224. Littau further teaches (Abstract) that the mounting arrangement of Littau provides the advantage of improved wafer edge protection during processing.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the prior art to select a particular and known in the art fixing/mounting arrangement for the object of the combination of Ooroku and Kee, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have to make such a selection in order to practice the disclosure of the combination of Ooroku and Kee, and Littau teaches that it is known in the art to directly mount the wafer/substrate to the recessed upper surface of a heater plate via chuck pins, and that such a mounting arrangement provides the further advantage of improved wafer edge protection during processing, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the combination of Ooroku and Kee with a working and known in the art substrate/wafer mounting arrangement as taught by Littau.
Claim 7
The modified combination of Ooroku and Kee by the teachings of Littau discloses: “The system of claim 6 wherein the clamping assembly comprises an outer clamping element (Littau: Fig5/6, outer clamp chuck pins 224) and an inner clamping element (Littau: Fig5/6, inner clamp surface 26 of top surface of heater plate 18), the outer clamping element arranged to substantially surround the inner clamping element (Littau: Fig5/6, outer clamp chuck pins 224 circumferentially surround inner clamp surface 26), one or both of the outer and inner clamping elements slidably moveable relative to each other (Littau: Fig5/6, both outer clamp chuck pins 224 and inner clamp surface 26 have relative motion between the two components when clamping wafer 24) to clamp the electronic package between opposing faces of the outer and inner clamping elements (Littau: Fig5/6, outer clamp chuck pins 224 and inner clamp surface 26 have opposing faces when clamping wafer 24).”
Claim 13
The combination of Ooroku and Kee discloses: “The system of claim 1 further comprising a holder comprising a retention region for receiving the electronic package (Ooroku: C8L28-29, best seen Fig3, object 100 is fixed to stage 280), …”
The combination of Ooroku and Kee is silent to any particular fixing structure/arrangement of the object to stage as claimed.
Littau teaches (best seen Fig6/5) that it is known in the art to fix a substrate/wafer 24 to a recessed heater plate upper surface 26 locked in via chuck pins 224. Littau further teaches (Abstract) that the mounting arrangement of Littau provides the advantage of improved wafer edge protection during processing.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the prior art to select a particular and known in the art fixing/mounting arrangement for the object of the combination of Ooroku and Kee, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have to make such a selection in order to practice the disclosure of the combination of Ooroku and Kee, and Littau teaches that it is known in the art to directly mount the wafer/substrate to the recessed upper surface of a heater plate via chuck pins, and that such a mounting arrangement provides the further advantage of improved wafer edge protection during processing, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the combination of Ooroku and Kee with a working and known in the art substrate/wafer mounting arrangement as taught by Littau.
Claim 14
The modified combination of Ooroku and Kee by the teachings of Littau discloses: “The system of claim 13 wherein the mask (Ooroku: mask 220) and the holder (Littau: pins 224, upper surface 26) are complementary in shape (mask lays on top of surface and pins are located on edge of surface providing full access to central region to interact with mask) and are configured to be secured in a predetermined relative alignment such that the array of apertures of the mask overlie the retention region of the holder (limitation is within the bounds of the modification discussed in Claim 13. The mask lays over the workpiece/wafer to function, the addition of pins along the perimeter would not cause the mask to fail – routine engineering modification is within the scope of art modification).”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 10,734,271 to Ota: Fig3, clamping arrangement for a wafer
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN HUNTER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-5093. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-18.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/JOHN S HUNTER, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights