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 .
Response for Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 05/08/2026 is acknowledged. Non-elected Group II (claims 10-11) and Group III (claims 12-20) are withdrawn from consideration. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/25/2023 and 04/23/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Taniguro et al. (US 9686871 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Taniguro discloses
A solder reflow apparatus (soldering device 110, fig.3) comprising:
a reflow chamber (first treatment part 110, second treatment part 120, third treatment part 130, fig.3) receiving a heat transfer fluid (organic fatty acid-containing solution 131, fig.3), the heat transfer fluid (organic fatty acid-containing solution 131) transferring heat to a solder for mounting an electronic part (electrode 2, fig.6) on a substrate (substrate 10, fig.6);
a heater (heater 121, fig.3) heating the heat transfer fluid in the reflow chamber (first treatment part 110, second treatment part 120, third treatment part 130);
a rail (R, annotated figure below) arranged in an upper region of the reflow chamber (first treatment part 110, second treatment part 120, third treatment part 130) and extending along a horizontal direction;
a stage module (S, annotated figure below) movably connected to the rail (R) and supporting the substrate (substrate 10); and
a controller controlling a positioning of the stage module (S) to move the substrate (substrate 10) supported by the stage module (S) to different heights in a vertical direction [Spec cited: “…ascending-descending shaft 113 is controlled such that it moves upward or downward by means of ascending-descending motor 114…”].
PNG
media_image1.png
499
677
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Taniguro discloses
the stage module (S annotated figure above) comprises: a stage (grip part 112, fig.3) supporting the substrate (substrate 10, fig.6); a vertical actuator (ascending-descending shaft 113, fig.3) moving the stage (grip part 112) in the vertical direction in response to the controller; and a horizontal actuator (conveying device 122, fig.2) movably connected to the rail (R, annotated figure above), the horizontal actuator (conveying device 122) moving the stage (grip part 112) along the horizontal direction in response to the controller.
Regarding claim 8, Taniguro discloses
the reflow chamber (first treatment part 110, second treatment part 120, third treatment part 130, fig.3) comprises: a loading gate (cassette 115, fig.3) loading the stage module (S, annotated figure below) into the reflow chamber (first treatment part 110, second treatment part 120, third treatment part 130); and an unloading gate (first opening-closing device 119, fig.3) unloading the stage module from the reflow chamber (first treatment part 110, second treatment part 120, third treatment part 130).
Regarding claim 9, Taniguro discloses
the substrate (substrate 10, fig.6) comprises a package substrate (substrate 10); and the electronic part (electrode 2, fig.6) comprises a semiconductor chip (electrode 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguro et al. (US 9686871 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Taniguro discloses substantially all the features as set forth above, such as the reflow chamber (first treatment part 110, second treatment part 120, third treatment part 130, fig.3) comprises: first to third regions (first treatment part 110, second treatment part 120, third treatment part 130)
However, Taniguro does not disclose a first process for dipping the solder in the heat transfer fluid at a first temperature is performed in the first region; a second process for pre-heating the solder at a second temperature is performed in the second region; and a third process for reflowing the solder at a third temperature is performed in the third region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the reflow chamber of Taniguro, with a first process for dipping the solder in the heat transfer fluid at a first temperature is performed in the first region; a second process for pre-heating the solder at a second temperature is performed in the second region; and a third process for reflowing the solder at a third temperature is performed in the third region, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70, in order to improve the process of solder reflow.
Regarding claim 4, Taniguro discloses
the first temperature is lower than the second temperature and the third temperature is higher than the second temperature [soldering device 110 can be controlled to perform the function].
Regarding claim 5, Taniguro discloses
the reflow chamber (first treatment part 110, second treatment part 120, third treatment part 130, fig.3) further comprises a fourth region (fourth treatment part 140, fig.3), wherein a fourth process for cooling the solder at a fourth temperature lower than the first temperature is performed in the fourth region (fourth treatment part 140) [soldering device 110 can be controlled to perform the function].
Regarding claim 6, Taniguro does not disclose the height of each region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the solder reflow apparatus of Taniguro, with the stage module in the first region has a first height in response to the controller; the stage module in the second region has a second height lower than the first height in response to the controller; the stage module in the third region has a third height lower than the second height in response to the controller; and the stage module in the fourth region has a fourth height higher than the first height in response to the controller, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70, in order to improve the process of solder reflow.
Regarding claim 7, Taniguro discloses
at least one following stage module (cassette 115, fig.3) loaded into the first region (first treatment part 110, fig.3) after the stage module is moved to the second region (second treatment part 120, fig.3) from the first region (first treatment part 110).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Regali et al. (US 6245189 B1) is considered as relevant prior in field of a plasma treatment system, as shown in fig.1, with a rail for adjusting height is controlled by a controller, but it is not a solder reflow apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1834. The examiner can normally be reached 9.00am-5.00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Crabb can be reached on 571-270-5095. 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.
/PHUONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
05/31/2026
Prosecution Insights