DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 9-15-2025 is acknowledged. The restriction is made final.
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 5 is 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 5 recites the limitation "the spherical solder ball melted" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Melting is not claimed in claims 1 or 2 so it is not clear what a scope of this limitation is referring to.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (JP 59-193712) in view of Pieper (4,208,899). Matsumoto discloses a solder ball (spherical metal ball, 11; page 3, lines 10-11) that is inserted into a non-spherical accommodation groove (hemispherical concave surface 12, page 3, line 12 or other non-spherical grooves, page 5, lines 10-13) in a prepared mold (13) and deforming the spherical metal ball workpiece into a non-spherical solder ball shape (25; Fig. 3D) corresponding to the non-spherical accommodation groove (Fig. 3C). Regarding claims 2 and 3, the solder ball (11) is deformed by applying pressure with a cover (upper die, 17) when the workpiece is located in the accommodation groove (Fig. 3C). Regarding claim 8, the shape of the non-spherical shape (25) is hemispherical (page 3, line 15). Matsumoto does not disclose a plurality of accommodation grooves which are located in the mold. Pieper teaches that a plurality (col. 7, lines 12-15) of accommodation grooves (matrices 13,14; col 4, lines 49-51) are located in a prepared mold body (5) so that a plurality of balls or non-spherical products (col. 1, lines 5-10) are manufactured when they are deformed by pressure from punches (col. 3, lines 5-10). Pieper teaches that providing a plurality of accommodation grooves in the prepared die increases output (col. 3, lines 8-10). Regarding the sorting step in claim 1, Pieper teaches that the products are sorted by being caught in a container (col. 4, lines 40-45 and col. 6, lines 58-60) after they are ejected as a preset reference, individually from each of the plurality of accommodation grooves. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to prepare the mold of Matsumoto with a plurality of accommodation grooves as taught by Pieper so as to increase the output of the mold by manufacturing a greater number of non-spherical shapes with each die stroke.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (JP 59-193712) in view of Pieper (4,208,899) and further in view of Oppenheimer et al. (2011/0302979). Regarding claim 4, Oppenheimer teaches (Fig. 7D, [0094]) that a mold (76) and a punch (74) are manufactured with cover material (78) which is polymeric [0043] that is not attached to the workpiece so that the mold and punch do not bind with the workpiece during forming Regarding claims 5 and 6, Oppenheimer teaches that the workpiece is heated in a furnace prior to deforming or that the punch and die are heated ([0098], lines 6-12) so that the workpiece is heated to a malleable temperature for deforming. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to heat the workpiece in a furnace or by the heat and pressure applied by the cover as taught by Oppenheimer in order to bring the solder ball to a temperature suitable for deforming the solder ball while it is malleable.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (JP 59-193712) in view of Pieper (4,208,899) and further in view of Wu et al. (CN 114054665). Matsumoto does not disclose heating and cooling the spherical metal ball. Wu teaches that in the ball making art, a workpiece is heated [0005], deformed [0006] and cooled after deformation ([0007], [0017]). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to heat the solder ball of Matsumoto prior to deforming and to cool the solder ball after deforming as taught by Wu in order to bring the solder ball to a malleable temperature for deforming.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (JP 59-193712) in view of Pieper (4,208,899) and further in view of Godijn et al. (7,533,793). Matsumoto suggests forming other shapes than hemispherical (page 5, lines 10-13) but does not explicitly disclose symmetry about a horizontal (left to right) and vertical (upward and downward) direction. Regarding claim 9, Godijn teaches (Figs. 3A-3C) that a pressing operation forms a non-spherical metal ball (10; Fig. 1) that is symmetrical about a horizontal and vertical axis. Regarding claim 10, the metal ball (10) has a plane surface (14). Regarding claim 11, Godijn teaches a vacuum pickup (col. 3, lines 27-31) to surface mount the non-spherical ball. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to form a symmetrical solder ball shape in the accommodation groove of Matsumoto as taught by Godijn in order to form a rectangular solder ball to be picked up by vacuum pickup for transfer.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (JP 59-193712) in view of Pieper (4,208,899) and further in view of Honda et al. (JP 03-193236). Matsumoto does not disclose a laminated spherical metal ball. Honda teaches that a workpiece (9) is a clad workpiece that is hot pressed into a non-spherical product (Figs. 3d, page 6, lines 3-5). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to manufacture the non-spherical solder ball of Matsumoto from a metal clad workpiece as taught by Honda so as to obtain a non-spherical solder ball with a laminated exterior of a different metal material.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (JP 59-193712) in view of Pieper (4,208,899) and Godijn et al. (7,533,793) and further in view of Honda et al. (JP 03-193236). Matsumoto does not disclose a laminated spherical metal ball. Honda teaches that a workpiece (9) is a clad workpiece that is hot pressed into a non-spherical product (Figs. 3d, page 6, lines 3-5). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to manufacture the non-spherical solder ball of Matsumoto from a metal clad workpiece as taught by Honda so as to obtain a non-spherical solder ball with a laminated exterior of a different metal material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rockwell discloses a spherical metal ball workpiece (1; page 1, col. 1, lines 39-41) that is inserted into a non-spherical accommodation groove (Fig. 1) in a prepared mold (3) and deforming the spherical metal ball workpiece into a non-spherical shape (Fig. 4) corresponding to the non-spherical accommodation groove (Fig. 3). The workpiece (1) is deformed by applying pressure with a punch (2) when the workpiece is located in the accommodation groove (Fig. 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD THOMAS TOLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Chris Templeton can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
/EDWARD T TOLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725