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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, Claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 28 July 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out any supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Priority
Applicant’s Continuation-In Part Application requesting the benefit of the filing date of Application No 18/076,914 is acknowledged. A review of this application was completed. However, the current claims under review contain limitations that are not present in this application. For example, claim 1 of the Instant Application recites the limitation: “said condition restriction unit being used to limit the learning bias of said artificial intelligence system by setting multiple conditions,” which is not present in Application No 18/076,914. As a result, the effective filing date for the claims under review is determined to be the filing date of the Instant Application, which is 14 November 2023.
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 “quick response matrix pattern,” “positive image,” “negative image,” and “graphic conversion process” of claim 1 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 Objections
Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Recommend amending line 12, page 1 of claim 1 to recite: “an artificial intelligence (AI) system.”
Recommend amending line 3, page 3 of claim 1 to recite: “a quick response matrix pattern.”
Recommend amending claim 2 to recite: “a processing path.”
Recommend amending claim 2 to recite: “a laser spot”
Recommend amending claims 2 and 12 to recite: “a material.”
Recommend amending line 4 of claim 4 to recite: “…said
Recommend amending claim 5 to recite: “: “…each of four corners of each said substrate.”
Recommend amending the last line of claim 6 to recite: “…each of four corners of each said substrate and at least two alignment points in a central region of each said substrate..”
Recommend amending claim 7 to recite: “wherein after obtaining said construction pattern, said control processing module calculates an overlapping area size of a laser spot size and energy of said laser desoldering module, and then said control processing module translates a laser dot matrix pattern.”
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 the following:
“learning and training unit” in claim 1: the generic placeholder is “unit” and the functional limitations are “learning and training” and “performing learning and pre-training through a substrate deep learning algorithm.”
“parameter optimization setting unit” in claim 1: the generic placeholder is “unit” and the functional limitations are “parameter optimization setting” and “being used to optimize the processing parameters according to the relevant information on the type of said at least one substrate, the size of said at least one substrate, the thickness of said at least one substrate, the color of said solder mask, the thickness of said solder mask and the depth around said at least one solder pad.”
“condition restriction unit” in claim 1: the generic placeholder is “unit” and the functional limitations are “condition restriction” and “being used to limit the learning bias of said artificial intelligence system by setting multiple conditions.”
“AI model processing unit” in claim 1: the generic placeholder is “unit” and the functional limitation is “AI model processing.”
“control processing module” in claim 1: the generic placeholder is “module” and the functional limitation is “control processing.” Claim 7 includes an additional limitation for the “control processing module,” i.e., “calculates the overlapping area size of the laser spots based on the laser spot size and energy of said laser desoldering module, and then translates a laser dot matrix pattern.”
“artificial intelligence system” in claim 4: the generic placeholder is “system” and the functional limitation is “analyzes and eliminates unsuitable alignment element point images, and calculates the deformation direction and degree of the substrate.”
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, and 7 recite a “learning and training unit,” a “parameter optimization setting unit,” a “condition restriction unit,” an “AI model processing unit,” a “control processing module,” and an “artificial intelligence system.” However, there is no corresponding structure in the Specification (i.e., any hardware) that is capable of covering the means-plus-function limitations (referencing MPEP 2181.II.B). As a result, there is insufficient disclosure because the Specification does not disclose a computer or any type of hardware that can perform the claimed functions in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing (MPEP 2161.01).
Claims 2-3, 5-6, and 8-13 are rejected based on their dependence to claim 1.
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.
Claim limitations “learning and training unit,” “parameter optimization setting unit,” “condition restriction unit,” “AI model processing unit,” “control processing module,” and “artificial intelligence system” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, claims 1, 4, and 7 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 1-13 are 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 1 recites a “laser processing machine” and an “energy controllable laser” within the preamble of the claim. The metes and bounds of the “smart desoldering device” in claim 1 are unclear because it not clear if the device requires a laser processing machine or an energy controllable laser. The body of claim 1 requires a “laser beam,” which appears to suggest that only a laser beam is required (i.e., not the laser processing machine; using the analysis from MPEP 2111.02). This interpretation is supported by fig. 1 of the Drawings in the Instant Application, which shows the substrate 200 as being part of the smart desoldering device 100 but does not show the laser processing machine as being part of the smart desoldering device 100. However, claim 13 recites: “wherein said laser desoldering module comprises multiple sets of laser light sources,” which appears to suggest that the “laser processing machine” of claim 1 is actually part of the “laser desoldering module,” which is included within the “artificial intelligence system” of the “smart desoldering device” according to claim 1. For the purpose of the examination, the “smart desoldering device” will be interpreted as including the “laser processing machine.”
Claim 1 recites “optimize and set all processing parameters automatically according to the characteristics of the said at least one substrate.” It is unclear which parameters are considered to be “all processing parameters.” It is also unclear what is considered to be “the characteristics of the said at least one substrate” (this is the first mention of the “parameters” or the “characteristics” within the claim). Although the Specification mentions the “processing parameters” and “the characteristics,” there is no description such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what these parameters or characteristics are. For the purpose of the examination, this limitation will be interpreted as: “optimize and set
The term “relevant” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relevant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As a result, the scope of the terms “relevant data” and “relevant information” of claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear what data is considered to be “relevant data” or which information is considered to “relevant information.” For the purpose of the examination, the limitations in claim 1 will be interpreted as “
Claim 1 recites “Internet NT.” It is unclear what the acronym “NT” stands for, and the Specification does not indicate what the acronym is short for. As a result, it is unclear what an “Internet NT” is, and how the “Internet NT” is different from the “Internet.” For the purpose of the examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “Internet
Claim 8 recites “wherein said camera module photograph the substrate and take out a substrate processing picture, and compare and judge whether said substrate processing picture is the same as said circuit layout diagram, if said substrate processing picture and said circuit layout diagram are the same, the substrate processing operation is completed.” A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the methods steps for using the apparatus is indefinite (MPEP 2173.05.p.II). It is unclear if infringement occurs based on the camera module structure or based instead on the method steps for photographing, taking out a picture, comparing and judging, and determining if a processing operation is completed. Recommend using “configured to” in order to clarify that a capability is being claimed for the module as opposed to a specific sequence of method steps.
Claim 9 recites “wherein in the step of comparing and judging whether said substrate processing picture and said circuit layout diagram are the same, if said substrate processing picture and said circuit layout diagram are not the same, the laser beam will peel off said clearing part based on the differences.” A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the methods steps for using the apparatus is indefinite (MPEP 2173.05.p.II). It is unclear if infringement occurs based on the camera module structure or based instead on a method step of comparing and judging, and using a laser beam to peel of a part.” Recommend using “configured to” in order to clarify that a capability is being claimed for the module as opposed to a specific sequence of method steps.
Claim 11 recites: “wherein the laser emitted by the laser beam is a high-frequency laser beam of millisecond or above.” It is unclear how a periodicity of 1 millisecond or above can be considered “a high-frequency beam.” For instance, a period of one second is within the range of “millisecond or above.” However, a period of 1 second or a frequency of 1 Hz is not considered by those of ordinary skill to be a “high-frequency beam.” The Specification discloses that the period can be “milliseconds, microseconds, nanoseconds or picoseconds.” For the purpose of the examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “wherein the laser emitted by the laser beam is a high-frequency laser beam of millisecond or below.”
Claim 13 recites: “wherein said laser desoldering module comprises multiple sets of laser light sources to respectively emit the laser beam.” Claim 13 is dependent on claim 1, which recites: “a laser processing machine through an energy controllable laser.” It is unclear how the “multiple sets of laser light sources” from claim 13 should be interpreted in view of the “laser processing machine through an energy controllable laser” from claim 1. For example, do all of the “laser sight sources” in claim 13 need to be “energy controllable lasers?” Or does claim 13 require “multiple sets of laser light sources” and an additional “energy controllable laser?” It is also unclear how multiple laser light sources respectively emit “the laser beam.” Would not multiple laser beams be generated if there were multiple light sources? Recommend clarifying how the structure introduced in claim 13 relates to the structure that is recited in claim 1.
Claims 2-7, 10, and 12 are rejected based on their dependence on claim 1.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 was reviewed to see if the claim qualifies as eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101 (referencing the flowchart from MPEP 2106.III). Referencing step 2A of the flowchart, the examiner determined that the claim is directed to an abstract idea (“YES” after step 2A). For example, claim 1 recites “a substrate deep learning algorithm,” which is an abstract idea. However, claim 1 also recites additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception (“YES” after step 2B). For example, claim 1 recites “said laser desoldering module using a laser beam to peel off said clearing part according to a construction pattern.” Thus, claim 1 integrates the abstract ideas recited earlier in the claim into a practical application of using a laser beam to peel a part off of a substrate. As a result, claim 1 is determined to be a claim that qualifies as eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiuchi et al. (US-20250086779-A1, effective filing date of 13 Sep 2023), Hu et al. (CN-113702290-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure), Pang (TW-M519772-U, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure), and Hsu (US-20170032281-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nishiuchi teaches a smart device (information processing apparatus 6, fig. 2) driven by artificial intelligence (machine learning model 40, fig. 3), which is used to process at least one substrate (“board conveyed to the solder mounting apparatus 2 as a substrate,” para 0016), and the surface of each said substrate is provided with at least one solder pad (“printing solder to a pad,,” para 0016), and a solder mask covers the surface of each said substrate (“mounting a solder sheet thereon,” para 0017) and the surface of the at least one solder pad of each said substrate (surface of pads 52, fig. 6; “solder is mounted,” on the boards, para 0070), and said solder mask has a shielding part facing the substrate surface (solder over the resist 64, i.e., the portion of the board 61 that is not the pad 62, fig. 6; para 0071) and a clearing part facing said at least one solder pad (solder over the pad 62, fig. 6; para 0071), said smart desoldering device comprising:
an artificial intelligence system (storage unit 22, communication interface 23, color information setting unit 33, and learning model generation unit 35, fig. 2) used to learn and pre-train the type of said at least one substrate (step S102, fig. 4), the size of said at least one substrate (board shape 61, fig. 6; the board shaped is construed as being the claimed “size;” fig. 6 is “input image data to be input to the machine learning model,” para 0068), the thickness of said at least one substrate (“solder thickness information and position information regarding a height direction (a thickness direction of the substrate,” para 0089), the color of said solder mask (colors are applied, para 0074), the thickness of said solder mask and the depth around said at least one solder pad (“solder thickness information and position information regarding a height direction (a thickness direction of the substrate, the solder, and the part),” para 0089; construed as obtaining the thickness of the parts that are the pads 62, fig. 6) and optimize and set processing parameters (the colors “orange,” “black,” “green,” “gray,” “yellow,” and “white,” are set, para 0074; the colors are construed as processing parameters set in an optimization process) automatically according to characteristics of the said at least one substrate to be processed (depending on the types of parts on the board 61, fig. 6; these different types are construed as being “characteristics” of the board; para 0074), said artificial intelligence system comprising a database unit (storage unit 22 and communication interface 23, fig. 2), a learning and training unit (learning model generation unit 35, fig. 2), a parameter optimization setting unit (color information setting unit 33, fig. 2), and an Al model processing unit (machine learning model 40, fig. 2), said database unit (storage unit 22 and communication interface 23, fig. 2) having information on the type of said at least one substrate, the size of said at least one substrate, the thickness of said at least one substrate, the color of said solder mask, the thickness of said solder mask and the depth around said at least one solder pad (the input information is provided to the machine learning model 40, which is stored in the storage unit 22, fig. 2; the data is applied to the input layer 41, fig. 3), said database unit being connected to the Internet (para 0027) through a wireless network unit (communication interface 23, fig. 2; “wireless,” para 0030) to update data online (“cloud environment,” para 0027), said learning and training unit (learning model generation unit 35, fig. 2) being connected to said database unit (storage unit 22 and communication interface 23, fig. 2), said learning and training unit performing learning and pre-training through a substrate deep learning algorithm (“deep learning,” para 0044) and based on data in said database unit (para 0046), said parameter optimization setting unit (color information setting unit 33, fig. 2) being connected to said database unit (storage unit 22 and communication interface 23, fig. 2), said parameter optimization setting unit being used to optimize the processing parameters according to the information on the type of said at least one substrate , the size of said at least one substrate, the thickness of said at least one substrate, the color of said solder mask, the thickness of said solder mask and the depth around said at least one solder pad (“sets color information for each of the plurality of types of components shown in the input image data,” para 0051; the color information is construed as the claimed “processing parameters”), said Al model processing unit (machine learning model 40, fig. 2) being connected to said learning and training unit (learning model generation unit 35, fig. 2) and said parameter optimization setting unit (color information setting unit 33, fig. 2), said AI model processing unit (machine learning model 40, fig. 2) being the Al brain (neural network in fig. 3) of said artificial intelligence system and being used to learn and train an Al model through said learning and training unit (paras 0043-0047; fig. 4);
a control processing module (determination unit 32, fig. 2) being connected to said Al model processing unit (machine learning model 40, fig. 2) of said artificial intelligence system, said control processing module generating a first control command (“the determination unit 32 inputs, to the input layer 41 of the machine learning model 40, the input image data generated by the image generation unit 31,” para 0064; inputting data is construed as being a “command”), a second control command (“The determination unit 32 outputs a result of the determination regarding the appropriateness of the design shown in the soldering-related design information,” para 0065) and a third control command (“, the processing execution unit 21 causes a user interface 25 to report the result of the determination at the determination unit 32,” para 0065; fig. 7) according to the instructions and related data sent by said Al model processing unit to perform processing operations on said at least one substrate (according to the input and output of the learning model 40, para 0065);
a camera module (image generation unit 31, fig. 2) being connected to said control processing module (determination unit 32, fig. 2), said camera module taking photos or images (“image data,” para 0048) of said at least one substrate (fig. 6) according to said first control command sent by said control processing module (“input image data,” para 0064).
Nishiuchi, fig. 2
PNG
media_image1.png
898
733
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nishiuchi does not explicitly disclose a desoldering device for laser removal of substrate solder mask, which is used to process at least one substrate placed in a laser processing machine through an energy controllable laser, wherein each said substrate corresponds to a panel production part number; a condition restriction unit, said condition restriction unit being connected to said learning and training unit, said condition restriction unit being used to limit the learning bias of said artificial intelligence system by setting multiple conditions; said camera module reading the quick response matrix pattern of the panel production part number on said at least one substrate and sending the quick response matrix pattern back to said AI model processing unit to identify the characteristics of said at least one substrate and carrying out pre-processing preparations for parameter optimization settings; and a laser desoldering module being connected to said control processing module, said laser desoldering module performing laser desoldering on said at least one substrate according to the first control command and a circuit layout diagram sent by said control processing module, said laser desoldering module using a laser beam to peel off said clearing part according to a construction pattern, so that said solder mask forms at least one hollow part, said circuit layout diagram importing the data of said solder mask, and then converting the data of said solder mask into a positive image, a negative image or a graphic conversion process to obtain said construction pattern.
However, in the same field of endeavor of soldering devices, Hu teaches a desoldering device (fig. 1) for laser removal of substrate solder mask (“laser photo-etching to remove the solder resist material in the contaminated welding area,” para 0009), which is used to process at least one substrate (“single circuit board coated with solder resist,” para 0054) placed in a laser processing machine (laser head 12, fig. 1) through an energy controllable laser (“CO2 laser” or “fiber laser,” para 0016; controls the parameter “laser power per unit area,” which is construed as controlling the energy, para 0016); and a laser desoldering module (laser solder resist photo-etching removal processing unit,” para 0029) being connected to said control processing module (“data processing and operating system,” para 0028), said laser desoldering module performing laser desoldering on said at least one substrate according to the first control command (“commands,” para 0028) and a circuit layout diagram (fig. 2; para 0020) sent by said control processing module, said laser desoldering module using a laser beam to peel off said clearing part (solder mask area 4-7-2, fig. 4) according to a construction pattern (“pattern is obtained as the boundary of the pattern to be removed by laser photo-etching,” para 0054), so that said solder mask forms at least one hollow part (“the structured laser head 12 removes the solder resist contamination,” para 0054; construed such that once the solder resist is removed, it becomes hollow), said circuit layout diagram importing the data of said solder mask, and then converting the data of said solder mask into a positive image (fig. 5 is construed as a positive image), a negative image (fig. 4 is construed as a negative image) or a graphic conversion process to obtain said construction pattern (“the outline of the pattern is obtained as the boundary of the pattern to be removed by laser photo-etching, and the processing path is generated,” para 0054; the process of obtaining the processing path by using the outline is construed as being a graphic conversion process).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Nishiuchi, in view of the teachings of Hu, by using the system, as taught by Hu in fig. 1, to remove the solder from the top of the pads, as taught by Nishiuchi in fig. 6, because if the solder is not removed, the solder can contaminate the solder pads, resulting in poor soldering or cold solder joints (Hu, para 0007).
Hu, fig. 1
PNG
media_image2.png
746
635
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Nishiuchi/Hu do not explicitly disclose wherein each said substrate corresponds to a panel production part number; a condition restriction unit, said condition restriction unit being connected to said learning and training unit, said condition restriction unit being used to limit the learning bias of said artificial intelligence system by setting multiple conditions; said camera module reading the quick response matrix pattern of the panel production part number on said at least one substrate and sending the quick response matrix pattern back to said AI model processing unit to identify the characteristics of said at least one substrate and carrying out pre-processing preparations for parameter optimization settings.
However, in the same field of endeavor of soldering devices, Pang teaches wherein each said substrate (object 6, fig. 2) corresponds to a panel production part number (barcode 7, fig. 2); said camera module (image capture device 1, fig. 4) reading the quick response matrix pattern of the panel production part number on said at least one substrate and sending the quick response matrix pattern back to said AI model processing unit (“The microprocessor 2 is configured to receive an image transmitted by the image capture device 1 and transmit the barcode image contained in the image to the analysis unit 3,” page 5) to identify the characteristics of said at least one substrate (“type, model, customer and other information of the board,” page 2) and carrying out pre-processing preparations for parameter optimization settings (“The component 4 is decoded, so that the creation can be decoded for different types of barcodes (7, 8) for the convenience of the user,” page 3; construed such that the barcode, which captures the information of the board, can be used for preprocessing and parameter optimization of the processing of the board).
Pang, fig. 2
PNG
media_image3.png
661
816
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Nishiuchi, in view of the teachings of Pang, by using barcodes, as taught by Pang, on the circuit boards, as taught by Nishiuchi, in order to improve efficiency by capturing information about the circuit board in the barcode that can then be relayed to a microprocessor for the convenience of the user (Pang, page 3).
Nishiuchi/Hu/Pang do not explicitly disclose a condition restriction unit, said condition restriction unit being connected to said learning and training unit, said condition restriction unit being used to limit the learning bias of said artificial intelligence system by setting multiple conditions.
However, in the same field of endeavor of soldering devices, Hsu teaches a condition restriction unit (system architecture 400b, fig. 4b), said condition restriction unit being connected to said learning and training unit (analytics computing platform 234, fig. 4b), said condition restriction unit being used to limit the learning bias of said artificial intelligence system (“quality assurance system…low bias large neural network,” para 0064) by setting multiple conditions (“test results, along with pass/fail criteria,” para 0090).
Hsu, fig. 4b
PNG
media_image4.png
1038
807
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Nishiuchi, in view of the teachings of Hsu, by using training data generated by highly skilled professionals with multiple tests and inspections formed on specific solder joints, as taught by Hsu, for the training data sets, that are taught by Nishiuchi, in order to avoid a learning process that results in a high bias due to human error, which can skew the output, rendering the machine-learning algorithm less accurate (Hsu, paras 0062 and 0069).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Nishiuchi in view of Hu, Pang, and Hsu as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 2. Specifically, Hu teaches wherein said artificial intelligence system predicts or adjusts the size and shape of the laser spot based on the processing path, the construction pattern (“spot of light projected onto the target pattern whose shape and size are exactly equal to the expected solder resist pattern.,” para 0020) and the amount of energy required by the material (“1.2 times the minimum power density required to remove the solder resist,” para 0016).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Nishiuchi in view of Hu, Pang, and Hsu as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 3. Specifically, Hu teaches wherein said artificial intelligence system uses said parameter optimization setting unit according to the calculation results to adjust different laser spot sizes (“a beam of light whose cross-section perfectly matches the shape and size of the solder resist pattern,” para 0020) and different number of laser shots in different areas of the same board of the substrate (“laser spots with the same shape and size as the selected area to be processed,” para 0015).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Nishiuchi in view of Hu, Pang, and Hsu as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 7. Specifically, Hu teaches wherein after obtaining said construction pattern, said control processing module calculates the overlapping area size of the laser spots (“structured laser processing systems can generate laser spots with the same shape and size as the selected area to be processed,” para 0015; construed as laser spots over an overlapping area) based on the laser spot size (para 0027) and energy of said laser desoldering module (“greater than 1.2 times the minimum power density,” para 0016), and then translates a laser dot matrix pattern (“the processing path is generated,” para 0054).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Nishiuchi in view of Hu, Pang, and Hsu as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 8. Specifically, Hu teaches wherein said camera module (camera 5, fig. 3) photograph the substrate and take out a substrate processing picture (“takes a picture of the structured light projection as shown in Figure 3,” para 0054), and compare and judge whether said substrate processing picture is the same as said circuit layout diagram (fig. 3 is compared with fig. 2 in order to determine if there is solder, as shown in fig. 4), if said substrate processing picture and said circuit layout diagram are the same, the substrate processing operation is completed (“The above two steps of structured light projection and photographing and structured laser removal of solder resist contamination are alternated and cyclically performed on workbench A and workbench B until the data obtained from the photographed image is completely consistent with the standard data,” para 0054; the removal is construed as being completed when the image is consistent (the same) as the data).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Nishiuchi in view of Hu, Pang, and Hsu as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 9. Specifically, Hu teaches wherein in the step of comparing and judging whether said substrate processing picture (fig. 3) and said circuit layout diagram (fig. 2) are the same (para 0054), if said substrate processing picture and said circuit layout diagram are not the same, the laser beam will peel off said clearing part based on the differences (“If the result of the second projection and photographing of the circuit board on workbench A still shows solder resist contamination, it continues to be removed with structured laser,” para 0054).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Nishiuchi in view of Hu, Pang, and Hsu as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 10. Specifically, Hu teaches wherein the substrate is divided into multiple areas to be processed through said circuit layout diagram (fig. 2 is divided into areas with a white color and with a black color), and then the laser beam peels off said clearing part of each area to be processed (“the structured laser head 12 removes the solder resist
contamination,” para 0054) according to a preset rule (“if solder resist contaminates the circuit soldering area,” para 0054; the detection of solder is construed as being a preset rule).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiuchi et al. (US-20250086779-A1, effective filing date of 13 Sep 2023), Hu et al. (CN-113702290-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure), Pang (TW-M519772-U, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure), and Hsu (US-20170032281-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Ishii et al. (US-20050105071-A1) and Ohashi et al. (US-20090122306-A1).
Regarding claim 4, Nishiuchi teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising an alignment module connected to said control processing module, said the alignment module using an infrared light to align the substrate to be processed according to a third control command transmitted by said control processing module to further adjust the expansion and contraction range of said construction pattern, wherein said infrared light is used to see through said solder mask, wherein said artificial intelligence system analyzes and eliminates unsuitable alignment element point images, and calculates the deformation direction and degree of the substrate.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of preventing warped substrates, Ishii teaches further comprising an alignment module connected to said control processing module, said the alignment module (fig. 5; “digital micro-mirror device (DMD),” para 0045) using an infrared light (“infrared light,” para 0045) to align the substrate (fig. 4) to be processed according to a third control command transmitted by said control processing module (control system 57, fig. 5) to further adjust the expansion and contraction range of said construction pattern (“a modified initial mask pattern that is fed to the DMD array 52 for imaging and exposure,” para 0049), wherein said artificial intelligence system analyzes and eliminates unsuitable alignment element point images (four alignment marks 31-34 are generated in fig. 3 but only three alignment marks 42-44, fig. 4; construed such that one alignment mark is eliminated), and calculates the deformation direction and degree of the substrate (“the present invention can determine the amount of variation of the alignment marks due to substrate deformation,” para 0043).
Ishii, fig. 4
PNG
media_image5.png
889
703
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Nishiuchi, in view of the teachings of Ishii, by using the DMD device, as taught by Hu, such that the DMD device detected the amount of variation of alignment marks due to substrate deformation, as taught by Ishii, in order to compensate for slight changes in the substrate dimensions, which can change due to thermal or chemical processing steps (Ishii, para 0005).
Nishiuchi/Ishii do not explicitly disclose wherein said infrared light is used to see through said solder mask.
However, in the same field of endeavor of soldering devices, Ohashi teaches wherein said infrared light is used to see through said solder mask (the infrared ray passes through the solder 3 and is reflected by the board, returning to the signal extracting unit 80, para 0271; construed as “seeing through the solder” because the ray passes through the solder to reach the board ).
Ohashi, fig. 1
PNG
media_image6.png
1109
765
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Nishiuchi, in view of the teachings of Ohashi, by using the infrared light, as taught by Ishii, to determine if there is a degree of deterioration in the solder material, as taught by Ohashi, because during manufacturing, the solder material is repeatedly rotated and moved, potentially causing defects on the circuit board due to deteriorated solder (Ohashi, paras 0004-0005).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Nishiuchi in view of Hu, Pang, Hsu, Ishii, and Ohashi as set forth above regarding claim 4 teaches the invention of claim 5. Specifically, Ishii teaches wherein each said substrate comprises an alignment point at each of four corners thereof (alignment marks 31-34, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Nishiuchi in view of Hu, Pang, Hsu, Ishii, and Ohashi as set forth above regarding claim 4 teaches the invention of claim 6. Specifically, Ishii teaches wherein each said substrate comprises an alignment point in each of four corners thereof (alignment marks 31-34, fig. 3), and at least two alignment points in a central region thereof (“Each local alignment region should contain at least three local alignment marks,” paras 0054-0055; the local alignment region is in the center of the substrate 55, fig. 5).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiuchi et al. (US-20250086779-A1, effective filing date of 13 Sep 2023), Hu et al. (CN-113702290-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure), Pang (TW-M519772-U, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure), and Hsu (US-20170032281-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Lei et al. (US-20100032417-A1).
Regarding claim 11, Nishiuchi teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the laser emitted by the laser beam is a high-frequency laser beam of millisecond or below.
However, in the same field of endeavor of soldering devices, Lei teaches wherein the laser emitted by the laser beam is a high-frequency laser beam of millisecond or below (“a solid-state UV laser, having available laser power of 1.35 watts at the work surface at 50 kilohertz (kHz),” para 0038; 50 kHz is construed as period of 0.02 milliseconds).
Lei, fig. 5
PNG
media_image7.png
878
651
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Nishiuchi/Hu, in view of the teachings of Lei, by using the solid-state UV laser, as taught by Lei, instead of the CO2 laser or fiber laser, as taught by Hu, in order to use a laser beam that can be pulsed at 20 kHz in order to increase the temperature gradient of the laser beam, resulting in more efficient cleaning of the material on the target pad (Lei, paras 0038-0039).
Regarding claim 12, Nishiuchi teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the type of the laser beam adopts at least one of carbon dioxide laser, chromium laser, green laser and ultraviolet light according to the characteristics of the material to achieve the effect of removing said solder mask without leaving any residue or carbonization.
However, in the same field of endeavor of soldering devices, Lei teaches wherein the type of the laser beam adopts at least one of carbon dioxide laser, chromium laser, green laser and ultraviolet light (“the use of a solid-state UV laser,” para 0028) according to the characteristics of the material to achieve the effect of removing said solder mask without leaving any residue or carbonization (“removal of a small amount of the underlying metal layer is acceptable and may be desirable to ensure that the pad surface is completely clean,” para 0074; removing some of the metal layer Is construed as not leaving an residue or carbon of the solder).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Nishiuchi/Hu, in view of the teachings of Lei, by using the solid-state UV laser, as taught by Lei, instead of the CO2 laser or fiber laser, as taught by Hu, in order to use a laser beam that can be pulsed in order to increase the temperature gradient of the laser beam, resulting in more efficient cleaning of the material on the target pad (Lei, paras 0038-0039).
Regarding claim 13, Nishiuchi teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein said laser desoldering module comprises multiple sets of laser light sources to respectively emit the laser beam, which respectively performs the stripping operation on said clearing part of the substrate according to said first control command and said circuit layout diagram, in which each laser light source is responsible for a different area.
However, in the same field of endeavor of soldering devices, Lei teaches wherein said laser desoldering module (fig. 6) comprises multiple sets of laser light sources (“These changes may be implemented in a single laser or by two or more lasers.,” para 0073) to respectively emit the laser beam, which respectively performs the stripping operation on said clearing part of the substrate according to said first control command and said circuit layout diagram (“The trigger timing may be coordinated, if desirable, with the control of a laser power supply 28 directly or indirectly by the system control computer 22 and/or the subsystem interface electronics 24.,” para 0056), in which each laser light source is responsible for a different area (the “overlying metal layer, to remove the bulk material, and to clean the pad” that are removed by each of the lasers are construed as each being different areas).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Nishiuchi/Hu, in view of the teachings of Lei, by using multiple lasers, as taught by Lei, instead of the CO2 laser or fiber laser, as taught by Hu, in order to use lasers that are individually employed to remove the overlying metal layer, the bulk material, and to clean the pad, for the advantage of not having to switch parameters for a single layer, while ensuring that the pad surface is completely clean of solder (Lei, paras 0073-0074).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. (US-20080264675-A1) teach removing solder from soldering pads using a laser.
Teraoka et al. (US-10646945-B2) teach a soldering apparatus and method.
Kikuchi et al. (US-20230232603-A1) teach a neural network for inspecting soldering.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 8/31/2026
Prosecution Insights