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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Although the previous Office action rejected claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Applicant was correct in noting that the indefinite language was instead found in claim 10, and is withdrawn in view of the amendment filed 10 December 2025.
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.
Claims 13, 14, 21-25 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 13 is indefinite because it recites “measuring concentration of oxygen” (l. 3) but it is unclear whether this step is intended to refer to, or to be in addition to, the previously recited step of “measuring one of…concentration of a second gas” (claim 8, l. 8).
Claim 14 is indefinite because it recites “supplying nitrogen into the sealed space” (l. 3) and “measuring concentration of nitrogen in the sealed space” (l. 4) but it is unclear whether these steps refer to, or are in addition to, the previously recited steps of “supplying a first gas into a sealed space” (claim 8, l. 3) and “measuring one of…concentration of a second gas” (claim 8, l. 8), respectively.
Claim 21 is indefinite because “the second gas” (l. 6) lacks antecedent basis in the claim as no second gas has been previously recited. Additionally, claim 21 is indefinite because the language “and the one of the pressure in the second sealed space and the concentration of the second gas in the second sealed space has reached a predetermined threshold” (last 2 lines) is unclear.
Claims 22-25 are indefinite because of their dependence from claim 21.
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.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishijima (JP H06-85450 A) in view of Tombler et al. (US 7,648,177 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Nishijima discloses a method of detecting failures of a gasket (14; fig. 4) that seals a furnace body (10) including a processing chamber (15) in which boards are processed (soldering apparatus 10 is a furnace body in which electronic components are soldered to a substrate; FIT Machine Translation, p. 3, ll. 21-24), the method comprising: supplying a first gas (nitrogen) into a sealed space (inside elastic member 14; fig. 3) isolated from the processing chamber (5), and defined by the furnace body (10) and the gasket (nitrogen gas is supplied into a sealed space inside elastic member 14 which is isolated from chamber 15, and defined by soldering apparatus 10 and elastic member 14; p. 9, ll. 24-28); measuring one of pressure in the sealed space and concentration of a second gas in the sealed space (pressure gauge 41 measures pressure of nitrogen gas in the sealed space inside elastic member 14; p. 8, ll. 14-15); determining whether the one of the pressure and the concentration of the second gas has reached a predetermined threshold (nitrogen gas is supplied to elastic member 14 until a desired pressure is reached; p. 9, ll. 24-28).
Regarding claim 9, Nishijima discloses wherein the first gas is nitrogen (p. 8, ll. 11-13).
Nishijima is silent on providing a notification of failure when pressure in the sealed space has not reached a predetermined threshold.
However, when pressurizing a sealed body to a desired pressure, such as the hollow elastic member (14) of Nishijima, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that when a desired pressure cannot be reached, a failure in the sealed body or pressurizing system is indicated. Tombler et al. teaches measuring pressure (with pressure sensor 31; fig. 3A) of a sealed space (30), and providing a notification indicating that failures of a gasket (34, 36) have occurred when the pressure in the sealed space (30) has not reached a predetermined threshold (pressure sensor 31 senses a pressure of sealed space 30 and indicator 33 may alarm in case of seal failure; c. 4, ll. 13-15 and c. 6, ll. 59-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Nishijima with the failure notification of Tombler et al. to ensure an operator is aware of improper sealing and/or potential leaks (Tombler et al., c. 6, ll. 59-61).
Regarding claim 15, Nishijima discloses measuring the pressure in the sealed space (pressure gauge 41 measures pressure of nitrogen gas in the sealed space inside elastic member 14; p. 8, ll. 14-15); determining whether the pressure in the sealed space has reached a predetermined threshold (nitrogen gas is supplied to elastic member 14 until a desired pressure is reached; p. 9, ll. 24-28).
Nishijima is silent on providing a notification of failure when pressure in the sealed space has not reached a predetermined threshold.
However, when pressurizing a sealed body to a desired pressure, such as the hollow elastic member (14) of Nishijima, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that when a desired pressure cannot be reached, a failure in the sealed body or pressurizing system is indicated. Tombler et al. teaches measuring pressure (with pressure sensor 31; fig. 3A) of a sealed space (30), and providing a notification indicating that failures of a gasket (34, 36) have occurred when the pressure in the sealed space (30) has not reached a predetermined threshold (pressure sensor 31 senses a pressure of sealed space 30 and indicator 33 may alarm in case of seal failure; c. 4, ll. 13-15 and c. 6, ll. 59-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Nishijima with the failure notification of Tombler et al. to ensure an operator is aware of improper sealing and/or potential leaks (Tombler et al., c. 6, ll. 59-61).
Regarding claim 16, Nishijima is silent on displaying a value of the pressure.
Tombler et al. teaches displaying a value of a measured pressure (indicator 33 can display a status of the seal based on pressure sensor 31 including an analogue or digital gauge; c. 6, ll. 50-56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Nishijima with the display of Tombler et al. to ensure an operator is aware of the status of a seal (Tombler et al., c. 6, ll. 50-56).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 and 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “measuring the concentration of the second gas in the sealed space” in combination with the remaining claim elements as recited in claims 10-12.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “wherein the gasket is provided to the upper furnace body or the lower furnace body and includes a first seal and a second seal spaced apart from the first seal by a fixation portion fixedly attached to the upper furnace body or the lower furnace body, and wherein the sealed space is defined by the first seal, the second seal, the fixation portion, and the upper furnace body or the lower furnace body when the furnace body is closed” in combination with the remaining claim elements as recited in claims 17-20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim(s) 8 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.
With regard to Nishijima, Applicant argues that “because the hollow elastic member 14 is filled with nitrogen gas, leaks in the hollow elastic member 14 do not affect soldering performance” and concludes that “one of ordinary skill in the art would not have had a reason to modify the automatic soldering apparatus of Nishijima to detect for leaks in the hollow elastic member 14.” Response filed 10 December 2015, pages 8-9. However, Nishijima discloses that hollow elastic member 14 is used to completely seal and maintain airtightness between joint portions 11a and 11b (FIT Machine Translation, page 9, ll. 24-28). Although hollow elastic member 14 is filled with an inert gas, such as nitrogen, so that any leakage would not affect soldering performance (page 9, ll. 31-32), hollow elastic member 14 is still intended to function as a seal between joint portions 11a and 11b. A defect in hollow elastic member 14 would not allow it to be filled to the desired pressure and perform as intended. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have seen the benefit of testing the integrity of hollow elastic member 14 and providing a failure notification.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erika J. Villaluna whose telephone number is (571)272-8348. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 am - 5:30 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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at (571) 272-3555. 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.
/ERIKA J. VILLALUNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852