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 Objections
Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 recites “the sensor performs sensing before irradiation with the laser light and during irradiation with the laser.” The last recitation of “the laser” should be “the laser light” for consistency. 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:
Control unit in claim 1. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: paragraph 27 states “The control apparatus 104 (see Fig. 2) is an information processing apparatus that controls the laser soldering apparatus 100. The control apparatus 104 may be integrated with the laser soldering apparatus 100 or may be connected to the laser soldering apparatus 100 directly or via a network. As shown in Fig. 2, the control apparatus 104 includes a control unit 131 and a database 132. Note that the control unit 131 is a functional configuration obtained by cooperation with hardware and software to be described later.”
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 § 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) 1-10 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyrer (EP 1372016 A2) in view of Ding (US 20200055132 A1) and Eifel (DE 102019108131 A1)
Claim 1. Tyrer discloses a laser
a laser light source (laser source 1, Fig. 1) that emits laser light (laser emitted from the laser source, Fig. 1, par. 15);
a spatial light modulator (SLM) that modulates the laser light incident from the laser light source (SLM 3, Fig. 1) and irradiates at least one of a solder or a soldering target object with the laser light (target 4 is irradiated with the laser beam, par. 16, Fig. 1, wherein the method disclosed can be used for soldering, par. 22); and
Tyrer does not disclose a control unit () that controls the laser light source and the SLM to adjust an irradiation condition of the laser light.
Ding discloses a laser soldering system 200 (Fig. 2) wherein a controller can be used to adjust the power of the laser beam (par. 55).
Eifel discloses a laser device for drilling holes where it discloses that it is known that SLMs can be electronically controlled to modulate laser parameters (par. 58)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tyrer to incorporate the teachings of Ding and Eifel and provide a controller that controls the power of the laser beam and the SLM. Doing so would have the benefit of adjusting the power of the beams and electronically control the SLM to modulate the laser beam (par. 55, Ding and par. 58, Eifel).
Claim 2. Tyrer in view of Ding and Eifel discloses the laser soldering apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the SLM is a liquid crystal on silicon-SLM (LCOS-SLM) (liquid crystal on silicon SLM is used, par. 9).
Claim 3. Tyrer in view of Ding and Eifel discloses the laser soldering apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the control unit controls the SLM to adjust at least one of a spot shape, a spot size, or an intensity distribution of the laser light (SLM known to be used to adjust the intensity distribution, par. 32 and 35, Eifel).
Claim 4. Tyrer in view of Ding and Eifel discloses the laser soldering apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the control unit controls the laser light source to adjust at least one of an output of the laser light, an irradiation time of the laser light (pulse duration can be adjusted, par. 4, Eifel), or a profile of the laser light.
Claim 5. Tyrer in view of Ding and Eifel does not disclose the laser soldering apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising
a sensor that senses at least one of the solder, the soldering target object, or a spot of the laser light, wherein
the control unit adjusts the irradiation condition on a basis of a sensing result provided by the sensor.
Eifel further discloses a sensor (position and distance sensor, par. 49) that senses at least one of the solder, the soldering target object (sensor detects the position of the workpiece, par. 49), or a spot of the laser light, wherein
the control unit adjusts the irradiation condition on a basis of a sensing result provided by the sensor (control unit processes the sensor data and can perform focus correction, par. 52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tyrer in view of Ding and Eifel to incorporate the teachings of Eifel and have a position and distance sensor. Doing so would have the benefit of monitoring the laser spot and correct the focus (par. 49-52, Eifel)
Claim 6. Tyrer in view of Ding and Eifel discloses the laser soldering apparatus according to claim 5, wherein
the control unit compares the sensing result provided by the sensor with a database, and specifies the irradiation condition (the calculated start and end positions of the workpiece is compared to the actual start and end position, par. 51, Eifel).
Claim 7. Tyrer in view of Ding and Eifel discloses the laser soldering apparatus according to claim 5, wherein
the sensor is an image sensor (camera unit, par. 49, Eifel) and senses at least one of a position (position sensor, par. 49, Eifel), a shape, or a color of the solder or the soldering target object.
Claim 8. Tyrer in view of Ding and Eifel does not disclose the laser soldering apparatus according to claim 5, wherein
the sensor is a temperature sensor and senses a temperature of the solder or the soldering target object.
Ding further discloses a temperature sensor 220 to detect the first temperature of the first element 203 being soldered (par. 38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tyrer in view of Ding and Eifel to incorporate the teachings of Ding and have a temperature sensor to detect the temperature of the soldered target. Doing so would have the benefit of monitoring the soldering process so that the controller can be used to adjust the power of the beam, par. 55-56, Ding)
Claim 9. Tyrer in view of Ding and Eifel discloses the laser soldering apparatus according to claim 5, wherein
the sensor is a photodetector and senses the spot of the laser light (camera unit for detecting position of the laser spot, par. 49, Eifel).
Claim 10. Tyrer in view of Ding and Eifel discloses the laser soldering apparatus according to claim 5, wherein
the sensor performs sensing before irradiation with the laser light (position and distance can be determined by the sensor prior to laser processing, par. 49, Eifel) and during irradiation with the laser (position and distance can be determined by the sensor during laser processing, par. 51, Eifel), and
the control unit determines the irradiation condition on a basis of a sensing result provided by the sensor before irradiation with the laser light (based on the position and distance data determined by the sensor the workpiece holder is adjusted to a processing height along the vertical axis, par. 95), and corrects the irradiation condition on a basis of a sensing result provided by the sensor during irradiation with the laser light (control unit processes the sensor data and can perform focus correction, par. 52, Eifel).
Eifel does not explicitly disclose that the control unit that the position and distance sensor is used to set the focus the laser beam. Eifel teaches that the determined position and distance data is used to control the beam positioning unit which is used for focus correction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the position and distance sensor to determine the focus position of the laser beam prior to irradiation and then perform focus correction during irradiation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to perform this method through routine optimization since the height of the processing object is already known and the focus performed by the beam positioning unit already moves based on the position and distance data coming from the sensor.
Claim 12. Tyrer discloses a
a laser light source that emits laser light (laser source 1, Fig. 1), and
a spatial light modulator (SLM) (SLM 3, Fig. 1) that modulates the laser light incident from the laser light source and irradiates at least one of a solder or a soldering target object with the laser light (target 4 is irradiated with the laser beam, par. 16, Fig. 1, wherein the method disclosed can be used for soldering, par. 22),
to adjust an irradiation condition of the laser light (SLM can be used to modulate the laser, par. 12).
Tyrer does not disclose a control unit () that controls the laser light source and the SLM to adjust an irradiation condition of the laser light.
Ding discloses a laser soldering system 200 (Fig. 2) wherein a controller can be used to adjust the power of the laser beam (par. 55).
Eifel discloses a laser device for drilling holes where it discloses that it is known that SLMs can be electronically controlled to modulate laser parameters (par. 58)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tyrer to incorporate the teachings of Ding and Eifel and provide a controller that controls the power of the laser beam and the SLM. Doing so would have the benefit of adjusting the power of the beams and electronically control the SLM to modulate the laser beam (par. 55, Ding and par. 58, Eifel).
Claim 13. Tyrer discloses a laser soldering method (laser technique which can be used for soldering, par. 22), comprising:
emitting laser light from a laser light source (laser source 1, Fig. 1);
modulating, by a spatial light modulator (SLM) (SLM 3, Fig. 1), the laser light incident from the laser light source and irradiating at least one of a solder or a soldering target object with the laser light (target 4 is irradiated with the laser beam, par. 16, Fig. 1, wherein the method disclosed can be used for soldering, par. 22); and
Tyrer does not disclose a control unit () that controls the laser light source and the SLM to adjust an irradiation condition of the laser light.
Ding discloses a laser soldering system 200 (Fig. 2) wherein a controller can be used to adjust the power of the laser beam (par. 55).
Eifel discloses a laser device for drilling holes where it discloses that it is known that SLMs can be electronically controlled to modulate laser parameters (par. 58)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tyrer to incorporate the teachings of Ding and Eifel and provide a controller that controls the power of the laser beam and the SLM. Doing so would have the benefit of adjusting the power of the beams and electronically control the SLM to modulate the laser beam (par. 55, Ding and par. 58, Eifel).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyrer in view of Ding and Eifel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsunoda (JP 2008277406 A).
Claim 11. Tyrer in view of Ding and Eifel does not disclose the laser soldering apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the control unit performs preheating in which the solder is not melted by the laser light, and main heating in which the solder is heated and melted by the laser light.
Tsunoda discloses a laser reflow apparatus for soldering wherein the irradiation unit first preheats the terminals without melting by using the laser light then during the main heating phase the solder is melted (par. 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tyrer in view of Ding and Eifel to incorporate the teachings of Tsunoda and preheat the solder. Doing so would have the benefit of improving heating efficiency (par. 7, Tsunoda).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMPSON A CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/SIMPSON A CHEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights