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. Therefore, the tapered guide duct 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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
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:
The conveying device in claims 22, 26, 29, 39, and 41 with the function being to convey the solder bodies to the drop entry. The corresponding structure described in the specification is a rotating disk [0033].
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 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 22-26, 29, 38, 39, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Azdasht (US Publication 2016/0354853).
Regarding claims 22, Azdasht teaches (Figure 2) a laser-assisted soldering application device (33) that comprises a laser duct (35) extending along a straight line, a drop or supply duct (41) that goes from the lower housing part (20) to the discharge end (34) in the application duct (35) of the application device (33), a conveying device (19), a nozzle (36) at the bottom of the device (33) that temporarily holds a solder body [0024], and the channel of the application duct (35) narrows (Figure 2), the drop entry and the laser entry are side by side at the discharge end (34) of the application duct (35).
Regarding claim 23, Azdasht teaches a common entry opening of the application duct (35) where the discharge end (34) of the common entry opening of the application duct is non-circular (Figure 2), and the common exit opening, and the rest of the application duct, is circular.
Regarding claim 24, as the drop duct is the entire path the solder balls take, Azdasht teaches it curves when it changes from the supply duct (41) to the application duct (35) as they connect in the discharge end (34)
Regarding claim 25, Azdasht teaches that the supply duct (41) narrows from the top to the bottom (Figure 2) and the application duct (35) does the same.
Regarding claim 26, Azdasht teaches a housing (15) with an upper housing part (14) and a lower housing part (20) and the application device (33) is integration into the lower housing part (20), the conveying device (19) is between the two housing parts (Figure 2) and there is a solder material duct (17) in the upper housing part (14).
Regarding claim 29, Azdasht teaches a solder body reservoir (12) that holds solder material.
Regarding claim 38, Azdasht teaches a coupling device (38) that directs laser radiation (40) into the application duct (35) with a transparent coupling surface (39).
Regarding claim 39, Azdasht teaches a conveying device (19) to convey the solder bodies from the guide or solder material duct (17) to the supply duct (41) and the conveying device (19) includes transport elements or holders (18) which are holes (Figure 3)
Regarding claim 42, Azdasht teaches a laser source or device [0025] that emits laser radiation, and teaches controlling the power and/or pulse duration of the laser beam [0031] which inherently requires a controller.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azdasht in view of Matsumoto et al. (US Publication 2010/0089981) hereafter referred to as Matsumoto.
Azdasht teaches all of the limitations of claim 26, but does not teach that the guide duct extends along the straight line through the upper housing part (Claim 27) or has a tapered cross-section through the upper housing part (Claim 28).
Matsumoto teaches a soldering apparatus that uses a tapered duct (215) in a straight line (Figure 4) in order to have the solder ball (32) exhibits a stable behavior in the straight guide section (213), and correspondingly, a stable fall, unlike the behavior in the solder ball receiving portion (214) [0043] in order to control the behavior of the solder ball (32) and to prevent a plurality of solder balls (32) from passing through the straight gate (213) side by side [0042].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the straight guide and tapered section disclosed in Matsumoto to the soldering device of Azdasht to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed in Matsumoto the motivation for the combination would be to control the movement of the solder and prevent a plurality of solder balls from reaching the conveying device at once.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azdasht in view of Finn et al. (US Patent 6152348) hereafter referred to as Finn.
Azdasht teaches all of the limitations of claim 29 and teaches that the solder body reservoir (12) is a line (Figure 1), but does not teach that the solder body reservoir includes a solder body tank, and wherein the line connects the solder body tank to the guide duct.
Finn teaches a device for singling out solder beads (Figure 1) that includes a joining material reservoir (11) or tank for storing the joining material in a volume.
It thus would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the joining material tank of Finn to the laser soldering device of Azdasht to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed in Finn, the solder body reservoir holds solder bodies, and therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a larger solder body reservoir could hold more solder bodies.
Claim 31, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azdasht.
Regarding claim 31, Azdasht teaches (Figure 2) an application nozzle (36) that is arranged in an exchangeable manner on the lower housing part (20) [0024] or the bottom of the application device which inherently requires an application nozzle holder in order to attached the application nozzle to.
Azdasht does not teach that the application nozzle holder is detachably connected to the bottom of the application device.
It has been held that when the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is that a part was not removable a finding of prima facie obviousness is appropriate (See MPEP §2144.04 V. C.). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to try attaching the nozzle holder in any known manner (removably or non-removably) as doing either would have been obvious to try to a person of ordinary skill to achieve the predictable result of securely attaching the nozzle holder to the device.
Claims 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azdasht in view of Robba et al. (US Patent 3697721) hereafter referred to as Robba.
Regarding claims 31 and 32, Azdasht teaches (Figure 2) an application nozzle (36) that is arranged in an exchangeable manner on the lower housing part (20) [0024] or the bottom of the application device but does not explicitly teach a nozzle holder (Claim 31) or that the nozzle holder includes a collet chuck (Claim 32).
Robba teaches a removable nozzle for a welding torch, and that it is customary to mount a nozzle (30) with a collet chuck attachment (Column 2, Lines 48-51) which holds the application nozzle (30)
Regarding claim 32, Azdasht teaches all of the limitations of claim 31 but does not teach a collet chuck that clamps the application nozzle.
Robba teaches a removable nozzle for a welding torch, and that it is customary to mount a nozzle (30) with a collet chuck attachment (Column 2, Lines 48-51).
As Azdasht does not teach the specifics of the connection between the nozzle and the nozzle holder, and Robba teaches it is known in the art of welding, and therefore also the related arts soldering and brazing, to use collet chucks to attach or mount nozzles it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try the collet chuck of Robba as it is a known method for attaching a nozzle to a nozzle holder and therefore useable in order to achieve the predictable result of attaching a nozzle to a nozzle holder.
Regarding claim 33, Azdasht teaches the use of a cap nut (62) that screws the application nozzle (36) to the lower housing part (20) [0024].
Claims 34-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azdasht in view of Oonishi (US Publication 2006/0124702 ).
Regarding claim 34, Azdasht teaches all of the limitations of claim 31, but does not teach a laser shield that encloses the application nozzle and surrounds a spot to be soldered.
Oonishi teaches a soldering device (Figure 1A) that includes a shielding member or tube (44) that encloses the output laser beam (42) of the laser emitter (41) and prevents the laser beam (42) from applying to the printed circuit board (10) around the land (13) [0026].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the shielding member or tube disclosed in Oonishi in the soldering device of Azdasht to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed in Oonishi the motivation for the combination would be to prevent the laser beam from applying to the printing circuit board.
Regarding claim 35, the modified device of Azdasht regarding claim 34 teaches all of the limitations of claim 34, but does not teach that the shielding member or tube is detachably mounted.
It has been held that when the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is that a part was not removable a finding of prima facie obviousness is appropriate (See MPEP §2144.04 V. C.).
Regarding claim 36, the modified device of Azdasht regarding claim 35 teaches all of the limitations of claim 35, but does not explicitly teach that the shielding member or tube includes a mounting part and a shielding part.
However, it is inherent that a tube or shielding device that is attached or mounted to the application nozzle holder includes an attaching or mounting part because that is where the tube or shielding device is attached or mounted from, additionally as shown in Oonishi (Figure 1A) the mounting happens towards the top of the device and the tube or shielding device extends downward from the attachment or mounting part.
Regarding claim 37, Oonishi teaches that the laser shield (44) has a hole (44a) which is a connection port that lets air through and therefore is adapted to be connected to a vacuum source as it allows air to be removed from inside the tube or shielding device through the hole.
Claims 40 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azdasht in view of Kasulke (US Patent 6119919).
Regarding claims 40 and 41, Azdasht teaches a light barrier device [0023] that permits control of a clocked circular conveying motion of the conveying device (Figure 3) (19) about the rotation axis (28). Azdasht does not teach what the light barrier device is or that it relates to measuring if soldier bodies are in the transport holes.
Kasulke teaches a soldering device (Figure 2) that has a detector signal triggered by an optical sensor (Column 5, Lines 28-30) which measures if the soldering material unit (23) is at a set location, in this scenario being the bump (14).
As Azdasht does not teach the specifics of the light barrier device other than the fact that it measures at the conveying device and Kasulke teaches an optical sensor which uses light to measure the location of the soldering material, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the light barrier device with the optical sensor of Kasulke to achieve the predictable result of measuring the existence of solder or a barrier to light in the area of the conveying device.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azdasht in view of Kawaguchi (US Patent 4899924).
Azdasht teaches all of the limitations of claim 22, but does not teach a flux dispenser that dispenses flux towards the solder body as the solder body exits the application nozzle.
Kawaguchi teaches a soldering device (Figure 1) that includes a flux supplying device (17) with a flux dispenser (45) that sprays flux onto the soldering spot and therefore the solder body as the solder body exits the application nozzle.
All of the component parts are known in Azdasht and Kawaguchi. The only difference is the combination of the “old elements” into a single device. Thus, it would have be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to attach the flux supplying device with flux dispenser as taught by Kawaguchi to the soldering device of Azdasht, since the operation of the flux dispenser is in no way dependent on the other equipment of the soldering device and a flux dispenser could be used in combination with a soldering device to achieve the predictable result of applying flux to the solder as the solder is exiting the application nozzle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Drew J Mitchum whose telephone number is (571)272-5610. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30.
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, Edward F Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/D.J.M./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights