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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/20/2023, 02/04/2025 and 04/30/2026.The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Election/Restriction requirement
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-15) in the reply filed on 6/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
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 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 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.
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 1-2, 4-8 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker (US20220181177A1) in view of Matsumoto (US 20230339237 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Becker discloses
An apparatus (see abstract) comprising:
a reflow oven (10, see fig.1); and
a first infrared (IR) sensor turret (62 b, see fig.3-5) suspended over a conveyor surface (surface of the conveyor 46, see fig.1-2) of the reflow oven (10, see fig.1-4).
Becker does not expressly disclose
wherein a directional movement of the first IR sensor turret matches a directional movement of the conveyor surface.
However, Matsumoto discloses a printer, comprising:
a directional movement of the first IR sensor turret (combo 26 and 28, see fig.8A-8B) matches a directional movement of the conveyor surface (surface of the conveyor unit 30, see fig.1A and 8a-8B,See para.0064: “the sensor 26 may be movable, for example, in the direction of conveyance of the medium M, as illustrated in FIGS. 8A and 8B” and para.0027: “0027: “The conveyor unit 30 is a unit to convey the medium M in the direction of conveyance”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the first IR sensor turret of Becker to have the “directional movement of the first IR sensor turret matches a directional movement of the conveyor surface” as taught by Matsumoto. Doing so allows the IR sensor can continuously and precisely measure the temperature of the PCB as it moves through the oven. This ensures that the sensor is always positioned optimally relative to the circuit board assembly’s location, reducing measurement errors caused by misalignment or lag.
Regarding claim 2, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth.
Becker further discloses an IR sensor (temperature sensor embodying an IR camera 74, see para.0050) of the first IR sensor turret (62, see fig.3-5) directed towards a top surface of the conveyor surface (surface of the conveyor 46, see fig.1-2), except wherein the directional movement of the first IR sensor turret dictates a directional movement of the IR sensor of the first IR sensor turret.
However, Matsumoto further discloses the directional movement of the first IR sensor turret (combo 26 and 28, see fig.8A-8B) dictates a directional movement of the IR sensor (26, see fig.8A-8B) of the first IR sensor turret (combo 26 and 28, see fig.8A-8B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the directional movement of the first IR sensor turret of Becker to dictate the directional movement of the IR sensor of the first IR sensor turret as taught by Matsumoto. This ensures that the sensor is always positioned optimally relative to the circuit board assembly’s location, reducing measurement errors caused by misalignment or lag.
Regarding claim 4, Becker further discloses a first heating element (26, see fig.2 and para.0045. See first heating element in annotated fig.2 below) positioned in a first temperature zone (30-36, see para.0045, 0047 and fig.2) of the reflow oven (10), wherein an operational range of the first IR sensor turret (62b) covers a first subarea ( area between the 6th and 7th zone (the soak zone and the spike zone, see para.0047 and fig.3. Para.0047 discloses: “a second IR camera assembly 62 b is positioned between the 6th and 7th zone (the soak zone and the spike zone”) of the reflow oven (10) beneath at least a portion of the first heat element on the conveyor surface (See para.0047: “the IR camera assemblies 62 can be deployed anywhere within the reflow soldering oven 10 to optimize the performance of the reflow soldering oven.”. Therefore, the IR camera assemblies 62 can be deployed beneath at least a portion of the first heat element 26 on the conveyor surface).
PNG
media_image1.png
566
938
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.2 of Becker
Regarding claim 5, Becker further discloses a second heating element (see second heating element in annotated fig.2 below) positioned in a second temperature zone (combo 20-24, see fig.2) of the reflow oven (10), wherein the second heating element (see second heating element in annotated fig.2 below) is adjacent to the first heating element (see first heating element in annotated fig.2 below), wherein the operational range of the first IR sensor turret (62b) covers a second subarea (20 and 22, see fig.2 and para.0045-0047) of the reflow oven beneath at least a portion of the second heat element on the conveyor surface (See para.0047: “the IR camera assemblies 62 can be deployed anywhere within the reflow soldering oven 10 to optimize the performance of the reflow soldering oven.”. Therefore, the IR camera assemblies 62 can be deployed beneath at least a portion of the second heat element 26 on the conveyor surface).
.
PNG
media_image2.png
566
938
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.2 of Becker
Regarding claim 6, Becker further discloses a second IR sensor turret (62 a, see fig.3) suspended over the conveyor surface (surface of 48) of the reflow oven (10), except wherein a directional movement of the second IR sensor turret matches the directional movement of the conveyor surface.
However, Matsumoto further discloses a directional movement of the second IR sensor turret (26 and 28, see fig.8A-8B) matches a directional movement of the conveyor surface (surface of the conveyor unit 30, see fig.1A and 8a-8B,See para.0064: “the sensor 26 may be movable, for example, in the direction of conveyance of the medium M, as illustrated in FIGS. 8A and 8B” and para.0027: “0027: “The conveyor unit 30 is a unit to convey the medium M in the direction of conveyance”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the second IR sensor turret of Becker to have the “directional movement of the first IR sensor turret matches a directional movement of the conveyor surface” as taught by Matsumoto. Doing so allows the IR sensor can continuously and precisely measure the temperature of the PCB as it moves through the oven. This ensures that the sensor is always positioned optimally relative to the circuit board assembly’s location, reducing measurement errors caused by misalignment or lag.
Regarding claim 7, Becker further discloses an operational range of the second IR sensor turret (62a) covers a third subarea (18 and 20, see fig.2 and para.0045-0047) of the reflow oven (10) beneath at least another portion of the second heat element (26) on the conveyor surface (See para.0047: “the IR camera assemblies 62 can be deployed anywhere within the reflow soldering oven 10 to optimize the performance of the reflow soldering oven.”. Therefore, the IR camera assemblies 62 can be deployed beneath at least a portion of the second heat element 26 on the conveyor surface).
Regarding claim 8, Becker further discloses the second subarea (20 and 22) of the reflow oven (10) beneath at least the portion of the second heat element (see second heating element in annotated fig. 2 above) on the conveyor surface (48, see fig.1) at least partially overlaps with the third subarea (18 and 20 of the reflow oven 10) beneath at least the portion of the second heat element (see second heating element in annotated fig. 2 above) on the conveyor surface (48, see fig.1).
Regarding claim 12, Becker further discloses the first IR sensor turret (62b) is suspended in a first gap between the first heating element and the second heating element (See first and second heating elements in annotated fig.2 above).
Regarding claim 13, Becker further discloses the first IR sensor turret (62b) is mechanically coupled to the first heating element (See first heating element in annotated fig.1 above. Because in the same system, the first IR sensor turret 62b is mechanically coupled to the first heating element 26).
Regarding claim 14, Becker further discloses the first IR sensor turret (62b) is mechanically coupled to the second heating element (See second heating element in annotated fig.1 above. Because in the same system, the first IR sensor turret 62b is mechanically coupled to the second heating element 26).
Regarding claim 15, Becker further discloses the first IR sensor turret (62b) is mechanically coupled to a top portion (66, see fig.3-5) within an interior surface of the reflow oven (10, see fig.3).
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker in view of Matsumoto as applied to claim 2 and further in view of Yocius US 20220297958 A1
Regarding claim 3, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except an optical camera with laser of the first IR sensor turret directed towards the top surface of the conveyor surface.
Yocius discloses Methods and systems for manufacturing a foam board system, comprising:
an optical camera (213, see fig.4) with laser (205, see fig.4) of the first IR sensor turret (140,see fig.2-4) directed towards the top surface of the conveyor surface (120, see fig.1 and para.0057).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Becker invention to have the “optical camera with laser of the first IR sensor turret directed towards the top surface of the conveyor surface” as taught by Yocius. Doing so allows to receive a plurality of characteristic measurements to determine the integrity of a board effectively (See para.0089 of Yocius) .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US6168064B1 discloses a plurality of infrared thermal scanners are located at critical points along the path which a substrate passes in a reflow oven so as to generate an actual solder paste time/temperature profile as a substrate passes through the zones of the reflow oven.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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 Landrum can be reached on (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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights