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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Claim 1 recites a “collection chamber” in line 10. This feature is not shown in any drawings.
Therefore, the above feature must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Double Patenting
Prior rejection of Claim 1 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting, is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to claim 1.
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.
Claims 1 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kee et al. (US 2004/0056078 A1, of record), and further in view of Zweig et al. (US 6009145 A, of record), and Mochizuki et al. (US 2016/0175959 A1, newly cited).
Re Claim 1, Kee teaches a method for replacing solder balls of an electronic package (Figs. 4-16), the electronic package (40, Fig. 5, para [0058]) comprising an array of solder balls (50A+50B+50C, Fig. 5, para [0058]) soldered to a corresponding array of seats (62, Fig. 5, para [0058]) located on a surface of the electronic package (40), the method comprising:
heating the solder ball to melt the array of solder balls (para [0069], Figs. 5-6);
removing each respective melted solder ball of the array of solder balls from the corresponding seat (paras [0068] and [0069], Figs. 6-7) by application of suction to the respective melted solder ball (capillary tube 42 used for removal is vacuum-held to the defective solder ball, para [0069]) utilizing a solder removal tool including a hollow needle coupled to a suction source (capillary tube 42 used for removal is vacuum-held to the melted solder ball using a vacuum source, paras [0062], [0068] and [0069], Kee), 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 (capillary tube 42 is used to position and suction force created by vacuum, Figs. 5-7, paras [0062], [0068] and [0069], Kee);
providing a plurality of replacement solder balls (solder ball reservoir, 80, Fig. 9, para [0071]);
for each seat (for each defective solder balls 50A, 50B, 50C, paras [0062] and [0073]), positioning a corresponding one of the replacement solder balls on the respective seat to form a seated replacement solder ball (para [0073], Figs. 13-14); and
heating the seated replacement solder ball such that the replacement solder balls reflow and form a metallurgical bond with the seats (para [0073], Fig. 15-16).
Kee teaches individually heating and replacing the defective solder balls and fails to expressly disclose collectively heating an array of solder balls to melt them during removal and then collectively heating an array of seated solder balls for reflowing during reattachment with good solder balls.
However, in a related art in the same field of endeavor, Zweig teaches a method of removal and reattachment of a ball grid array (BGA) package (18, Fig. 2, Col. 6, lines 4-30) from a printed circuit board (20), where the whole workpiece is held on a heating paten (16), which is then heated to collectively melt the array of solder balls to remove the BGA package in order to remove any defective solder balls. Similarly, during reattachment, the array of seated solder balls are collectively heated for solder reflow and bonding.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, to modify the method of Kee in view of Zweig, to collectively heat, melt and remove the defective solder balls, especially involving plurality of defective arrays of solder balls, using heat platen as disclosed by Zweig, as that would be more time-efficient and cost-effective. Similarly, during the reattachment stage, it would be more time-efficient and cost-effective, to collectively heat the array of seated solder balls for solder reflow and final bonding.
Kee also does not disclose a solder collection chamber within the solder removal too. Kee discloses that the molten solder ball can be drawn into the capillary tube and then expelled out (paras [0062] and [0068]).
Related art, Mochizuki teaches a solder removal tool (Figs. 1-5) where the removed molten solder is sucked through the cylindrical element (142, Fig. 5, para [0026]), and is collected into a solder collector (122, Fig. 4, para [0025]) within the solder removal tool (Figs. 3-5, para [0025]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, to modify the device of Kee such that it incorporates the solder collector within the solder removal tool, as disclosed by Mochizuki. This will increase the efficiency of the solder removal process by collecting the molten solder in the collection chamber, without having to expel the molten solder after each instance of removing a defective solder ball. Moreover, this also ensures that the molten solder does not fall back into the device, thus protecting the delicate electronic components, allowing for easy cleanup and solder disposal.
Re Claim 13, Kee modified by Zweig and Mochizuki teaches the method of claim 1 wherein removing each one of the array of solder balls from the corresponding seat by application of suction to the respective melted solder ball further comprises heating the needle to at least the melting temperature of the solder balls (heater 90 surrounds the capillary tube 42 to heat the latter to a melting temperature of solder balls, Fig. 4, para [0065], Kee).
Re Claim 14, Kee modified by Zweig and Mochizuki teaches the method of claim 1 wherein removing each one of the array of solder balls from the corresponding seat by application of suction to the respective melted solder ball comprises successively removing each of the melted solder balls in turn (successively removing each of the melted solder balls 50A, 50B, 50C, para [0074], Kee).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kee et al. (US 2004/0056078 A1), Zweig et al. (US 6009145 A) and Mochizuki et al. (US 2016/0175959 A1, newly cited), and further in view of Ankrom et al. (US 4840305 A).
Re Claim 2, Kee modified by Zweig and Mochizuki teaches the method of claim 1 wherein collectively heating the array of solder balls is preceded by a preliminary heating step, the preliminary heating step comprising baking the electronic package for a predetermined minimum time period at a temperature of one of at least 110 degrees Celsius, at least 115 degrees Celsius, at least 120 degrees Celsius, or at least 125 degrees Celsius (preheat at 120 degrees Celsius, Col. 6, lines 4-30, Zweig).
Zweig disclosed that the preheat can be done at 120 degrees Celsius for about 1 minute and fails to expressly disclose preheating for at least one of 3.5 hours, 4 hours, or 4.5 hours. Zweig states that the heating regime is exemplary and can be changed depending on the processes involved (Col. 6, lines 4-30, Zweig)
Related art, Ankrom teaches that a baking step before the solder reflow process where the workpiece is baked for 4-5 hrs. at 121 degrees Celsius, to remove any moisture (Col. 9, lines 2-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of invention, to optimize the pre-heat or baking time and arrive at the claimed limitation, depending on the processes involved. With respect to the limitations of the claim, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). The optimization of the claimed pre-heat or baking time would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 3, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kee et al. (US 2004/0056078 A1), Zweig et al. (US 6009145 A) and Mochizuki et al. (US 2016/0175959 A1, newly cited), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bertram et al. (US 4934582 A) and Sidhu et al. (US 2013/0341379 A1).
Re Claim 3, Kee modified by Zweig and Mochizuki teaches the method of claim 1 but does not disclose “applying a water soluble fluxing agent to the electronic package such that the fluxing agent covers the solder balls” before “collectively heating the array of solder balls to melt the solder balls” during the desoldering process.
Related art, Bertram teaches a desoldering process, where the desoldering braid (10, Fig. 1, Col. 2, lines 64-68) is coated with flux because it helps to prevent any oxidization of the copper bonding pad (Col. 4, lines 30-32).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, to apply a fluxing agent on the solder balls of Kee before the desoldering process, as that would prevent any oxidization of the metallic bonding pad (Col. 4, lines 30-32, Bertram).
Kee modified by Zweig, Mochizuki and Bertram does not explicitly disclose that the fluxing agent is water soluble.
Related art Sidhu discloses that the fluxing agent can be made up of variety of components and can be water soluble (para [0012]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, that the fluxing agent of Kee modified by Zweig, Mochizuki and Bertram, and can be water soluble as disclosed by Sidhu, which will ensure an easy clean-up process. The use of a known material for its known purpose to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. Also see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Re Claim 5, Kee modified by Zweig, Mochizuki, Bertram and Sidhu teaches the method of claim 3 wherein applying the fluxing agent to the electronic package comprises applying the fluxing agent to the electronic package so as to form a continuous path of the fluxing agent covering each of the solder balls (Bertram discloses a desoldering braid 10 that is coated with flux, see Fig. 1, Col. 2, lines 64-68, where the element 10 continuously covers all the solder joints, and hence the flux would be continuously covering all the solder balls).
Re Claim 7, Kee modified by Zweig, Mochizuki, Bertram and Sidhu teaches the method of claim 3 but does not explicitly disclose dispensing additional fluxing agent to either or both of the solder balls and portions of the electronic package separating adjacent ones of the solder balls during either or both of the steps of collectively heating the array of solder balls to melt the solder balls, or removing each one of the array of solder balls from the corresponding seat by application of suction to the respective melted solder ball.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of invention, to optimize the number of times the fluxing agent has to be applied, as it depends on the size and shapes of the solder balls, the amount of fluxing agent dispensed each time and any other additional processes involved in the desoldering process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that there might require additional dispensing of the fluxing agent depending on the specific electronic parts and processes involved. With respect to the limitations of the claim, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). The optimization of the number of times the flux is dispensed would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kee et al. (US 2004/0056078 A1), Zweig et al. (US 6009145 A), Mochizuki et al. (US 2016/0175959 A1, newly cited), Bertram et al. (US 4934582 A) and Sidhu et al. (US 2013/0341379 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2023/0007787 A1).
Re Claim 4, Kee modified by Zweig, Mochizuki, Bertram and Sidhu teaches the method of claim 3 but does not specifically disclose applying the fluxing agent to the electronic package comprises confining application of the fluxing agent to cover the solder balls and portions of the electronic package separating adjacent ones of the solder balls.
However, in a related art, Lee teaches a method of disposing flux, such that the flux (FL, Fig. 1A, para [0039]) is deposited as droplets on individual pads (12P, Fig. 1A, para [0039]), such that the flux covers the pads and portions of the electronic package separating adjacent ones of the pads.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, to modify the method of Kee modified by Zweig, Bertram and Sidhu such that the flux is applied as disclosed by Lee, where the flux covers the solder balls and portions of the electronic package separating adjacent ones of the solder balls. The use of a known process for its known purpose to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. Also see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kee et al. (US 2004/0056078 A1), Zweig et al. (US 6009145 A), Mochizuki et al. (US 2016/0175959 A1, newly cited), Bertram et al. (US 4934582 A) and Sidhu et al. (US 2013/0341379 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Van Riet et al. (US 2018/0052443 A1).
Re Claim 6, Kee modified by Zweig, Mochizuki, Bertram and Sidhu teaches the method of claim 3 but does not disclose dispensing the fluxing agent through a hollow needle coupled to a reservoir of the fluxing agent preceded by a purging step, the purging step comprising purging the hollow needle of air such that fluxing agent dispensed from the hollow needle is free of air bubbles.
However, in a related semiconductor art, Van Riet teaches a flux dispenser (Fig. 1A) where the fluxing agent passes through a hollow needle (jet nozzle 18, Fig. 1A, para [0058]) coupled to a reservoir of the fluxing agent (flux supply tank 14, Fig. 1A, para [0060]) preceded by a purging step, the purging step comprising purging the hollow needle of air such that fluxing agent dispensed from the hollow needle is free of air bubbles (purging step to remove any air bubbles in the nozzle, para [0076]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, to modify the method of Kee modified by Zweig, Bertram and Sidhu such that the flux is applied through a flux nozzle as disclosed by Van Riet, which includes a purging step to remove any air bubbles to avoid contamination. The use of a known process for its known purpose to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. Also see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kee et al. (US 2004/0056078 A1), Zweig et al. (US 6009145 A) and Mochizuki et al. (US 2016/0175959 A1, newly cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakemi et al. (US 5680984 A).
Re Claim 8, Kee modified by Zweig and Mochizuki teaches the method of claim 1 wherein collectively heating the array of solder balls to melt the solder balls comprises mounting the electronic package (20, Fig. 1 of Zweig, similar to element 40 of Kee) to a first heater assembly including a hot plate (16, Fig. 1 of Zweig, Col. 6, lines 4-30) and retain the electronic package in a predetermined orientation (see Fig. 1, Zweig), and the first heater assembly in which the array of solder balls is exposed in line of sight (see Fig. 1, Zweig).
Zweig discloses that the package 20 is securely hold to the heater assembly 16, but does not explicitly disclose a clamping assembly.
In a similar field of endeavor, related art, Sakemi teaches a clamping assembly (30, Fig. 1, Col. 6, lines 18-23) that securely holds the substrate (31) to the holder (29), which is used for positioning the substrate.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, to modify the method of Kee modified by Zweig and Mochizuki, to include the clamping assembly as taught by Sakemi, to securely hold the package and the heater of Zweig. This will ensure accurate positioning of the package with respect to the heater during the melting of the solder balls, and also during the reattachment of the solder balls.
Re Claim 11, Kee modified by Zweig, Mochizuki and Sakemi teaches the method of claim 8 wherein removing each one of the array of solder balls from the corresponding seat by application of suction to the melted solder balls (capillary tube 42 used for removal is vacuum-held to the melted solder balls, para [0069], Figs. 6-7, Kee) is performed while the electronic package is mounted to the first heater assembly (the electronic package is mounted on heater, Kee modified by Zweig, see claim 1 above).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kee et al. (US 2004/0056078 A1), Zweig et al. (US 6009145 A), Mochizuki et al. (US 2016/0175959 A1, newly cited) and Sakemi et al. (US 5680984 A) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Masterton et al. (US 5738269 A).
Re Claim 9, Kee modified by Zweig, Mochizuki and Sakemi teaches the method of claim 8 wherein collectively heating the array of solder balls to melt the solder balls comprises heating the first heater assembly to a predetermined temperature that exceeds a melting temperature of the solder balls (heated to a temperature between 200°C and 210°C, Col. 6, lines 4-30, Zweig).
Zweig does not explicitly state that a temperature differential between the solder melting temperature and the predetermined temperature (of 200°C and 210°C) is within a temperature differential of one of between 10°C and 40°C, between 10°C and 30°C, or between 10°C and 20°C.
In a related art in the same field of endeavor, Masterton teaches that a solder melting pointing is between 178°C and 183°C (Col. 4, lines 21-30).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, that the predetermined temperature of the heater assembly (200°C and 210°C, Zweig, Col. 6, lines 4-30) is within a temperature differential of between 10°C and 40°C, since the solder melting pointing is between 178°C and 183°C (Col. 4, lines 21-30, Masterton).
Re Claim 10, Kee modified by Zweig, Mochizuki, Sakemi and Masterton teaches the method of claim 9 wherein the first heater assembly is pre-heated to the predetermined temperature prior to the electronic package being mounted to the first heater assembly (preheat at 120 degrees Celsius, Col. 6, lines 4-30, Zweig) and the first heater assembly is maintained at the predetermined temperature throughout the step of collectively heating the array of solder balls to melt the solder balls (heater assembly is maintained at a temperature range between 200°C and 210°C, Col. 6, lines 4-30, Zweig).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kee et al. (US 2004/0056078 A1), Zweig et al. (US 6009145 A) and Mochizuki et al. (US 2016/0175959 A1, newly cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishi et al. (US 2022/0395935 A1).
Re Claim 15, Kee modified by Zweig and Mochizuki teaches the method of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose removing each one of the array of solder balls from the corresponding seat is followed by applying a cleaning agent including isopropyl alcohol to the electronic package.
However, in a related semiconductor art, Nishi teaches that the purpose of surface washing of the object to be plated is to remove and clean the deposits on the surface of the object to be plated, and a solvent capable of washing can be methanol, ethanol, or isopropyl alcohol (para [0144]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, to apply a cleaning agent like isopropyl alcohol into the method of Kee modified by Zweig and Mochizuki, as taught by Nishi. The use of a known material for its known purpose of cleaning to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. Also see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kee et al. (US 2004/0056078 A1), Zweig et al. (US 6009145 A) and Mochizuki et al. (US 2016/0175959 A1, newly cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Van Riet et al. (US 2018/0052443 A1).
Re Claim 16, Kee modified by Zweig and Mochizuki teaches the method of claim 1 wherein positioning the corresponding one of the replacement solder balls on the respective seat is preceded by applying a fluxing agent (flux 83, Fig. 14, paras [0072] – [0073], Kee) to the array of seats of the electronic package (seats 62A of package 40, see Fig. 14, Kee) such that the fluxing agent does not bridge adjacent ones of the seats (see Fig. 14, Kee).
Kee discloses that the solder balls are dipped in the flux reservoir and hence does not disclose applying a fluxing agent through a hollow needle coupled to a reservoir of the fluxing agent and that the fluxing step is preceded by a purging step including purging the hollow needle of air such that fluxing agent dispensed from the needle is free of air bubbles.
Related art, Van Riet teaches an alternate method of applying flux by using a flux dispenser (Fig. 1A) where the fluxing agent passes through a hollow needle (jet nozzle 18, Fig. 1A, para [0058]) coupled to a reservoir of the fluxing agent (flux supply tank 14, Fig. 1A, para [0060]) and the fluxing step is preceded by a purging step, the purging step comprising purging the hollow needle of air such that fluxing agent dispensed from the hollow needle is free of air bubbles (purging step to remove any air bubbles in the nozzle, para [0076]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, to modify the method of Kee modified by Zweig and Mochizuki, such that the flux is applied through a flux nozzle of a flux dispenser as disclosed by Van Riet, which includes a purging step to remove any air bubbles to avoid contamination. The substitution of a known process of fluxing for its known purpose to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. Also see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kee et al. (US 2004/0056078 A1), Zweig et al. (US 6009145 A) and Mochizuki et al. (US 2016/0175959 A1, newly cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fukasawa et al. (US 4871110 A).
Re Claim 17, Kee modified by Zweig and Mochizuki teaches 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 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 (see Figs. 10-14, Kee), 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 (repeating the process of Kee to replace the array of defective solder balls, see claim 1 above).
Kee modified by Zweig and Mochizuki does not disclose a mask.
However, related art, Fukasawa discloses that a mask having a number of holes aligned to the positions of the replacement solder balls can be used to improve the accuracy and efficiency of the replacement process (Col 1, lines 20-30).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, to incorporate the mask into the method of Kee modified by Zweig and Mochizuki, as taught by Fukasawa as that would improve the accuracy and efficiency of the replacement process.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kee et al. (US 2004/0056078 A1), Zweig et al. (US 6009145 A) and Mochizuki et al. (US 2016/0175959 A1, newly cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Massingill et al. (US 6271107 B1).
Re Claim 18, Kee modified by Zweig and Mochizuki teaches the method of claim 1 but does not disclose that the plurality of replacement solder balls each have a diameter in a range of 220 micrometers to 280 micrometers.
However, in a related semiconductor art, Massingill teaches that the solder balls can have a diameter between 200 µm and 400 µm (Col 10, lines 46-56).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, to have a known size of the replacement solder balls in the method of Kee modified by Zweig and Mochizuki, such that the diameter of the replacement solder balls is between 200 µm and 400 µm as taught by Massingill, which is within the claimed range.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kee et al. (US 2004/0056078 A1), Zweig et al. (US 6009145 A) and Mochizuki et al. (US 2016/0175959 A1, newly cited) and Fukasawa et al. (US 4871110 A) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Ooroku et al. (US 6413850 B1).
Re Claim 19, Kee modified by Zweig, Mochizuki and Fukasawa teaches the method of claim 17 but does not disclose that 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.
Related art in the same field of endeavor, Ooroku teaches an alternate mask assembly to replace solder balls wherein the mask (ball mask 220, Fig. 4, Col 8, lines 60-67) comprises a perimeter wall (frame 222, Fig. 4) substantially surrounding the array of apertures (apertures 221a, Fig. 4), 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 (solder balls are supplied on the surface of mask, inwards of the wall, Figs. 4b-4c), 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 (inclining the mask, Figs. 4b-4c) and, the perimeter wall substantially confining the plurality of replacement solder balls to inwards of the perimeter wall (see Fig. 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, to modify the method of Kee modified by Zweig, Mochizuki and Fukasawa, such that to incorporate the solder replacement mask assembly of Ooroku, as that would improve the efficiency in replacing the solder balls, especially when there are a plurality of arrays of solder balls to be replaced. Additionally, the selection of a known process based on its suitability for its intended use of solder ball replacement supports a prima facie obviousness determination as established in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), see MPEP 2144.07.
Re Claim 20, Kee modified by Zweig, Mochizuki, Fukasawa and Ooroku teaches the method of claim 19 further comprising inclining the mask to pour excess ones of the plurality of replacement solder balls from the surface of the mask through an opening defined in the perimeter wall (solder frame 222 of ball mask 200 has a U-shaped frame, thus having an opening side to remove excess solder balls, Figs. 4b-4d, Col 8, lines 60-67, Ooroku).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PINAKI DAS whose telephone number is (703)756-5641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, JULIO MALDONADO can be reached at (571)272-1864. 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.
/P.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights