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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-4 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on September 30, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
Figures 3-4 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.
Reference numeral “50s” used in Fig. 3 should also be used in Fig. 4 to indicate the same elements between the two Figures
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "50", “51”, “D0”, “52”, “52a”, and "40p" have both been used to designate the same properties in Figs. 13, 17, and 17 of different embodiments of pin shapes. The Applicant may consider using subscripts to distinguish between the different embodiments. 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. 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following phrase in paragraphs 33-34 is awkward:
“a diameter of the solder paste dipped into the tip end portion”
The following phrases in paragraphs 3, 40-41, 43-44, 46, 64, 70, 82, 88, 95 is awkward:
“or the like” “and the like”.
Clarification is requested.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “film thickness” is a term that is possibly being used to describe different properties in two -three different setting.
Film thickness is used to described in paragraphs 11-12, 75, 79, 82, and 93-94 to describe: “film thickness of the solder paste accommodated in a container”. It is unclear if this term refers to “inherent thickness” or “liquid thickness in a supply container” or “viscosity”. Clarification is requested (based on support in the original priority document and translation is requested). For the purpose of prosecution, his term is being interpreted as “viscosity” based on the drawings and specification discussed above.
Film thickness is used to described in paragraphs 33-34 and Figs. 16A-B to describe: “shape of the solder paste held by the tip end portion when a film thickness is 60um or 200um”. It is unclear if this term refers to “shape of the liquid on the pin” or “bead of solder paste”. Clarification is requested (based on support in the original priority document and translation is requested). For the purpose of prosecution, his term is being interpreted as “bead of solder paste” based on the drawings and specification discussed above.
Film thickness is used to described in paragraphs 35-36 to describe: “film thickness of the solder paste and a diameter of the solder paste dipped into the tip end portion”. It is unclear if this term refers to “film thickness or height of the solder in the process of being transferred to a mounting portion of a component of a board” or “film thickness height of the solder remaining on a mounting portion of a component of a board after transfer has been complete “ie coating”. Clarification is requested (based on support in the original priority document and translation is requested). For the purpose of prosecution, his term is being interpreted as “film height of the solder remaining on a mounting portion of a component of a board after transfer has been complete” based on the drawings and specification discussed above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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: “selection section” in claim 5, “setting section” in claim 7,
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.
The “releasing portion” is shown in Figs. 5-10 and 14 as reference numeral 53 is formed on the tip end side of the main body portion 51, and releases solder paste from tip end portion of main body portion when solder paste including the solder ball is dipped and transferred to mounting portion 91 of component 80 of board 90 and described in Abstract and paragraphs 10, 13, 59-60, 63, and 99-100.
The “mounting portion” is shown in Fig. 1as reference numeral 91 is a portion electrically connected to an electrode of component 80, and is also referred to as a pad and described in Abstract and paragraphs 7,10, 22-23, 49, 54, 56, 62, 65-69, 76-78, 91-92, 96-98, and 100.
The “selection section” is shown in Fig. 11 as reference numeral 61 provided in control device 17 of component mounter 10 and described in paragraphs 11, 72, 79-82, 87-88, 100.
The “setting section” is shown in Fig. 11 as reference numeral 62 provided in control device 17 of component mounter 10 and described in paragraphs 12, 72, 93-95, and 100.
The “control section” is shown in Fig. 11 as reference numeral 63 provided in control device 17 of component mounter 10 and described in paragraphs 72 and 96-100.
The “control device” is shown in Fig. 11 and includes a well-known arithmetic device, a storage device, and a control circuit and described in paragraphs 38, 43-47, 54, and 72 .
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
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites:
“a selection section configured to, in a case where a film thickness of the solder paste accommodated in a container is constant, select the transfer pin having a larger taper angle of the main body portion as a transfer diameter of the solder paste to be transferred increases”
A suggested revision is as follows:
“when thickness of the solder paste accommodated in a container is constant, a selection section is configured to select [[ the]] a second transfer pin having a larger taper angle of the main body portion than a first transfer pin to increase a transfer diameter of the solder paste
Claim 6 recites:
“the selection section is configured to, in a case where dipping and transferring are repeated multiple times on one transfer pin, select the transfer pin in which the taper angle of the main body portion is set so that the transfer diameter of the solder paste to be transferred is constant from the first time”
A suggested revision is as follows:
“when dipping and transferring are repeated multiple times on[[ one]] the first transfer pin, the selection section is configured to select [[the]] a third transfer pin in which the taper angle of the main body portion of the second transfer is such that the transfer diameter of the solder paste to be transferred is constant from the transfer diameter of the solder paste transferred with the first transfer pin
Claim 7 recites:
“ and a setting section configured to, in a case where a taper angle of the main body portion is constant, set a film thickness of the solder paste accommodated in a container to be thicker as a transfer diameter of the solder paste to be transferred increases”
A suggested revision is as follows:
“ when a taper angle of the main body portion is constant, a setting section is configured to set a film thickness of the solder paste accommodated in a container to be thicker to increase a transfer diameter of the solder paste to be transferred
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites:
“the multiple mounting portions”
A suggested revision is as follows:
“[[the]] multiple mounting portions”
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.
The factual inquiries 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 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-H1066911 to Sakamoto et al (hereinafter Sakamoto) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160299510 A1 to Feine et al (hereinafter Feine).
Regarding claim 1 (the claim from which claim 5 depends), Sakamoto teaches a transfer pin (2) comprising: a main body portion (portion extending from 29) ; and a releasing portion (tip end of 2 adjacent 25) formed on a tip end side of the main body portion, and configured to, when a solder paste including a solder ball (25) is dipped and transferred to a mounting portion of a component of a board, release the solder paste from a tip end portion of the main body portion(portion extending from 29) . (See Sakamoto Abstract, Fig. 7a-d, Fig. 16 a-h).
Regarding claim 5, Sakamoto teaches the main body portion is formed integrally with the tip end portion in a shape that tapers from a base end portion (top of 2 in Fig. 7c) toward the tip end portion (bottom of 2 in Fig. 7c). (See Sakamoto, Fig. 7c)
Further, regarding claim 5, Sakamoto does not explicitly teach a selection section configured to, in a case where a film thickness of the solder paste accommodated in a container is constant, select the transfer pin having a larger taper angle of the main body portion as a transfer diameter of the solder paste to be transferred increases.
Feine is directed to a tip based computer controlled system.
Feine teaches a selection section (microprocessor 102, memory 108, operating characterstic controller) contains the operating control algorithims and tip device profiles and boundary parameters. (See Feine, Abstract, Fig. 6 and paragraphs 58, 64, 80.) Examiner is considering a tip device profile to be equivalent to taper angle of the transfer pin and transfer diameter equivalent to a boundary parameter.
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have a selection section configured to, in a case where a film thickness of the solder paste accommodated in a container is constant, select the transfer pin having a larger taper angle of the main body portion as a transfer diameter of the solder paste to be transferred increases with a reasonable expectation of success, because Feine teaches these tools are known to be used to adjust an operating characteristic to a determined level. (See Feine, Abstract, Fig. 6 and paragraphs 58, 64, 80.)
Further, regarding claim 7, Sakamoto teaches the main body portion being formed integrally with the tip end portion in a shape that tapers from a base end portion ( top of 7c) toward the tip end portion( bottom of 7c) . (See Sakamoto, Fig. 7c)
Sakamoto does not explicitly teach a setting section configured to, in a case where a taper angle of the main body portion is constant, set a film thickness of the solder paste accommodated in a container to be thicker as a transfer diameter of the solder paste to be transferred increases.
Feine teaches the main body portion being formed integrally with the tip end portion in a shape that tapers from a base end portion toward the tip end portion; and a setting section (operating characteristic controller) configured to, in a case where a taper angle (tip device profile) of the main body portion is constant, set a film thickness of the solder paste accommodated in a container to be thicker as a transfer diameter (boundary parameter) of the solder paste to be transferred increases. (See Feine, Abstract, Fig. 6 and paragraphs 58, 64, 80.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have a setting section configured to, in a case where a taper angle of the main body portion is constant, set a film thickness of the solder paste accommodated in a container to be thicker as a transfer diameter of the solder paste to be transferred increases be transferred increases with a reasonable expectation of success, because Feine teaches this would enable to adjust an operating characteristic to a determined level. (See Feine, Abstract, Fig. 6 and paragraphs 58, 64, 80.)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-H1066911 to Sakamoto et al (hereinafter Sakamoto) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160299510 A1 to Feine et al (hereinafter Feine) as applied to claim 5 and further in view of JP-2005000776 A to Saito Katsumi et al (hereinafter Saito).
Regarding claim 6, Sakamoto does not explicitly teach the selection section is configured to, in a case where dipping and transferring are repeated multiple times on one transfer pin, select the transfer pin in which the taper angle of the main body portion is set so that the transfer diameter of the solder paste to be transferred is constant from the first time.
Saito teaches a pin transfer method capable of efficiently and accurately an object. (See Saito, Table 1, Abstract, paragraph 14, and 41-50.)
Saito teaches a particular angle (60o ) in a case where dipping and transferring are repeated multiple times on one transfer pin, select the transfer pin in which the taper angle of the main body portion is set so that the transfer diameter of the solder paste to be transferred is constant from the first time. (See Saito, Table 1, Abstract, paragraph 14, and 41-50.)
Feine teaches the selection section (microprocessor 102, memory 108, operating characteristic controller) is configured to, in a case where dipping and transferring are repeated multiple times on one transfer pin, select the transfer pin in which the taper angle of the main body portion (device profile) is set so that the transfer diameter (boundary parameter) of the solder paste to be transferred is constant from the first time. (See Feine, Abstract, Fig. 6 and paragraphs 58, 64, 80.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the selection section is configured to, in a case where dipping and transferring are repeated multiple times on one transfer pin, select the transfer pin in which the taper angle of the main body portion is set so that the transfer diameter of the solder paste to be transferred is constant from the first time, because Feine teaches this known structure for its intended purpose to adjust an operating characteristic to a determined level. (See Feine, Abstract, Fig. 6 and paragraphs 58, 64, 80.)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-H1066911 to Sakamoto et al (hereinafter Sakamoto) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160299510 A1 to Feine et al (hereinafter Feine) as applied to claim 5 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20020083998 A1 to Overbeck et al ( Overbeck).
Regarding claim 8, Sakamoto does not explicitly teach further comprising a control section configured to simultaneously transfer the solder paste to the multiple mounting portions using at least one transfer pin provided on a pedestal portion.
Overbeck teaches for depositing dots in an ordered array.
Overbeck teaches further comprising a control section (computer ) configured to simultaneously transfer the solder paste (minute drops of fluid) to the multiple mounting portions using at least one transfer pin (pin 12) provided on a pedestal portion (precision XY gantry, common support). (See Overbeck, Abstract, paragraphs 13, 21, 36, 195-197.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include further comprising a control section configured to simultaneously transfer the solder paste to the multiple mounting portions using at least one transfer pin provided on a pedestal portion, because Overbeck teaches this would enable small quantities of material to be deposited precisely in a fluid array. (See Overbeck, Abstract, paragraphs 13, 21, 36, 195-197.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717