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 § 102
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 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 1-5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Regner et al. (US Publication 2001/0011676).
With respect to claim 1, Regner et al. teaches a stencil (10) for depositing solder on a printed circuit board (PCB), the stencil comprising:
a plurality of stencil apertures (12, 14, Figure 1), a first stencil aperture (12) of the plurality of stencil apertures (12, 14) having an aperture wall (20) defining an aperture perimeter,
wherein the aperture wall (20) is configured to not extend beyond an outer edge of a PCB pad provided on the PCB (20 does not extend beyond 18 in fig. 4),
wherein the aperture wall (20) is configured to not extend beyond an outer edge of a terminal of a surface mount component (20 does not extend beyond any surface mount component as shown in Figures 3 and 4 and note the claim is directed to a solder stencil, not a PCB. Therefore, the surface mount components are not positively recited as part of the stencil/claimed invention and are functional limitations), and
wherein the first stencil aperture (12) is configured to receive solder paste to form a non-convex solder joint between the PCB pad and the terminal (note: the recitation “to form a non-convex solder joint between the PCB pad and the terminal” is an intended use).
With respect to claims 2 and 3, as noted above the limitations “the non-convex solder joint is a concave solder joint” and “the non-convex solder joint is a straight solder joint” is an intended use and not part of the claimed invention, therefore Regner is capable of performing the intended function.
With respect to claim 4, as noted above, “non-convex solder joint” is intended use and not part of the claimed invention therefore “a maximum principal stress level” of the limitation, “wherein a maximum principal stress level exerted by the non-convex solder joint is less than or equal to 42 megapascal (MPa)” is not a positively recited feature and not part of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 5, as noted above, “non-convex solder joint” is intended use therefore “a maximum principal stress level” of the limitation, “the non-convex solder joint is a concave solder joint, wherein the maximum principal stress level exerted by the concave solder joint is approximately equal to 30 MPa” is not a positively recited feature and not part of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 7, the limitation, “the surface mount component is a quad flat no- lead (QFN) package” it is noted that the surface mount components are not positively recited as part of the stencil/claimed invention and are functional limitations.
With respect to claim 8, Regner et al. teaches the first stencil aperture (12) is configured to receive the solder paste (20) that contacts the PCB pad (18) and only a surface of the terminal that faces the PCB pad (note: the recitation “configured to receive the solder paste that contacts the PCB pad and only a surface of the terminal that faces the PCB pad” is an intended use, however Regner et al. does teach a solder paste 20 received in the aperture 12).
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 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regner et al. (US Publication 2001/0011676).
With respect to claim 6, Pao et al. teaches the claimed invention with the exception of a portion of the aperture perimeter defined by the aperture wall has a width of approximately 0.2milimeters (mm).
However, it has been held that held that where general conditions are disclosed
in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105USPQ 233.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in that art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Pao et al., to provide a portion of the aperture perimeter defined by the aperture wall has a width of approximately 0.2milimeters (mm) as claimed since such a modification would assist in minimizing the stress and strains in the solder joints.
The following rejections under 35 USC are presented to expedite prosecution.
Claims 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regner et al. (US Publication 2001/0011676). There are a limited number of solder joints (concave, convex and straight). Since there are a small number of possible joint shapes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize a concave solder joint or a straight solder joint is for the purpose of maximizing a combination of strength, material cost and available space. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 4-5 It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize a principal stress less than or equal to 42 MPa or approximately 30MPa for the purpose of using an optimum value. The applicant should note that it has been held discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cayrefourcq (US Publication 2001/0010743) teaches an apparatus with solder bumps with recesses. Shown are a plurality of stencil apertures (30), a first stencil aperture of the plurality of stencil apertures having an aperture wall defining an aperture perimeter, wherein the aperture wall is configured to not extend beyond an outer edge of a PCB pad (30 does not extend beyond 26, see fig. 1) provided on the PCB, wherein the aperture wall is configured to not extend beyond an outer edge of a terminal of a surface mount component (30 does not extend beyond an outer edge of 12 or 20, see fig. 1), and wherein the first stencil aperture is configured to receive solder paste to form a non-convex solder joint between the PCB pad and the terminal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARISSA LIANA FERGUSON SAMRETH whose telephone number is (571)272-2163. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m.-5 p.m.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached on 571-272-2149. 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.
/Marissa Ferguson-Samreth/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/CHRISTOPHER E MAHONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights