CTNF 18/576,889 CTNF 96345 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/5/2024 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 29, 39, 42, 44, and 46 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 29 line 6, “the obtained” lacks antecedent basis and should therefore read “an obtained.” In claim 29 line 8 and claim 46 line 6, “the difference” lacks antecedent basis and should read “a difference.” In claim 29 line 12, “the sprayed flux result” lacks antecedent basis and therefore should read “the measured obtained flux result” consistent with apparent antecedent support in lines 6 and 8. In claim 39 line 3, “the amount of flux sprayed” lacks antecedent basis and therefore should read “an amount of flux sprayed.” In claim 42 line 2, “the deviation of spray” lacks antecedent basis and therefore should read “a deviation of spray.” In claim 44 lines 1-2, “the flux amount correction factor,” and “the amount of flux spreading” each lack antecedent basis and should read “a flux amount correction factor,” and “an amount of flux spreading.” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. Claims 37 and 43-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In claim 37 line 2, “an optical sensor, for example a laser fork or a high-speed camera” renders claim 37 indefinite because it is unclear whether a laser fork and high-speed camera are merely exemplary or constitute strict limitations on what the optical sensor may constitute. For purposes of examination, and consistent with the terminology used, “a laser fork or a high-speed camera” are interpreted as being merely exemplary such that the scope of what constitutes an “optical sensor” may extend beyond a laser fork or a high-speed camera. The structure of claim 43 is unclear in terms of its dependence from and corresponding inclusion of elements from claim 38. A plain reading of claim 43 renders it unclear whether claim 43 incorporates all limitations of claim 38 consistent with US claim dependency standards or whether Applicant intends to carve out only the “position correction factor calculated according to claim 38.” If claim 43 is intended to depend from claim 38, which is how claim 43 is interpreted for examination purposes, then the dependence should be expressly conveyed such as by reciting “The method according to claim 38, further comprising monitoring the performance of a soldering machine by monitoring at least one of the flux result correction factor or the position correction factor.” Otherwise, claim 43 should be amended to characterize “a position correction factor” without reference to claim 38. In a related but distinct aspect, claim 43 is further rendered indefinite because “the position correction factor” in lines 2-3 lacks clear antecedent relation such as from claim 38, which recites “at least one position correction factor.” It is therefore unclear whether all or any one of the at least one position correction factor(s) are/is required to be monitored in claim 43. For examination purposes, claim 43 is further interpreted such that “monitoring” “the position correction factor” requires only one of the “at least one position correction factor” (per claim 38) to be monitored. Claims 44-45 depend from claim 43 and are likewise rejected for the same reasons. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 29-39, 41, 43, and 46-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abernathy (US 2005/0001869 A1) . As to claim 29, Abernathy teaches “[a] method of calibrating a parameter in a” [fluid dispensing] “process (Abstract method in which size-related physical characteristic of droplet dot used for adjusting control parameter of droplet dispenser, which as characterized on [0010] entails calibration; FIG. 3) in a soldering machine ([0028] method applicable for a variety of viscous fluid dispensers including for soldering) , the method comprising: determining an expected” [fluid dispensing] “result when at least one calibration” [fluid dispensing] “setting is used to spray” [viscous fluid] ([0011] stored values of desired (expected) physical characteristics of dots that vary based on nozzle temperature (calibration setting); [0013] desired dot size associated by the calibration/adjustment process with a dispensing stroke length (another calibration setting) used to dispense the fluid and comparing the desired dot with the dispensed dot using an initial stroke length and/or nozzle temperature per [0011] (the initial temperature/stroke length constitute “calibration” setting because they are used in the calibration process) for which the desired dot size is expected); FIG. 4 blocks 402 and 408 and [0040]-[0041]) “from a nozzle ([0013] viscous fluid dispensed via nozzle; FIG. 2 nozzle 48, [0031]) ; spraying” [viscous fluid] “from the nozzle (FIG. 2 droplets 34 dispensed from nozzle 48) using the at least one calibration” [fluid dispensing] “setting (FIG. 4 block 402, [0040] calibration process including dispensing the fluid (inherently at a given dispensing setting such as temperature and/or stroke length, prior to potential adjustment of the setting)) ; measuring the obtained” [fluid dispensing] “result when” [viscous fluid] “is sprayed using the at least one calibration” [fluid dispensing] “setting (FIG. 4 blocks 404 and 406 and [0040]-[0041] dots resulting from fluid dispensing are measured) ; calculating the difference between the measured obtained” [fluid dispensing] “result and the expected” [fluid dispensing] “result (FIG. 4 blocks 408 and 412 and [0041]-[0042] determine difference between dispensed dots and specified/desired dot size; FIG. 9 blocks 906 and 910 and [0072]-[0073]) ; and calculating a” [fluid dispensing] “result correction factor corresponding to the at least one calibration” [fluid dispensing] “setting (FIG. 4 blocks 408, 410, 412, and 414 and [0041]-[0042] nozzle temperature corrected (increased or decreased); FIG. 9 blocks 906, 908, 910, and 912 and [0072]-[0073] stroke length corrected (increased or decreased)) , wherein the” [fluid dispensing] “result correction factor is applicable to the soldering machine during a” [fluid dispensing] “process ([0028] method applicable for a variety of viscous fluid dispensers including for soldering; FIG. 3 dot size calibration/correction (block 306) applied for subsequent dispensing operations (block 328)) , to reduce the difference between the sprayed” [fluid dispensing] “result and the expected” [fluid dispensing] “result ([0041] nozzle temperature increased if dispensed dot is smaller than specified/desired dot to address disparity); [0042] nozzle temperature decreased if dispensed dot is larger than specified/desired dot to address disparity; [0072] increase stroke length if dispensed dot is smaller than specified/desired dot to address disparity; [0073] decrease stroke length if dispensed dot is larger than specified/desired dot to address disparity) .” Regarding the method being for calibrating a parameter in a “fluxing” process and the fluid being a sprayed “flux,” Abernathy’s embodiments describe the viscous material in an open-ended manner (e.g., [0028] describing applications for PC board substrates in which various viscous fluids including solder) and furthermore discloses in the background ([0003]-[0004]) that viscous fluids including solder flux are examples of types of viscous fluids that require dispensing control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, in view of Abernathy’s disclosure of soldering flux as a type of viscous fluid requiring dispensing control to have implemented Abernathy’s method using a “fluxing” process as the viscous fluid dispensing process such that consequently the sprayed viscous fluid is a sprayed flux and the corresponding measuring and calculating steps are implemented with the viscous fluid being flux. Such a combination would amount to selecting known features in known ways to achieve predictable results. As to claim 30, Abernathy teaches “[t]he method according to claim 29, wherein the at least one calibration flux setting comprises at least one calibration flux amount setting (FIG. 4 blocks 802 (dots applied inherently at some nozzle temperature), and 808 and 812 (nozzle temperature increased/decreased to reduce dot size (amount) disparity; FIG. 9 blocks 902 (dots applied inherently using some stroke length) and 908 and 912 (stroke length increased/decreased to reduce dot size (amount) disparity) , the parameter comprises an amount of flux sprayed by a nozzle (FIGS. 4 and 9 dot size/weight is the parameter calibrated) , the expected flux result comprises an expected flux amount ([0010] calibration entails changing temperature or stroke corresponding to dot size/weight; [0011] target is desired dot size; FIG. 4 blocks 406, 408, and 412 and FIG. 9 blocks 904, 906, and 910 characterizing the desired/expected result in terms of amount (diameter or weight of dot)) , the measured obtained flux result comprises an amount of flux sprayed (FIG. 4 block 406 and FIG. 9 block 904 results measured in terms of size/weight (amount) of dot) , and the flux result correction factor comprises a flux amount correction factor corresponding to the at least one calibration flux amount setting (FIG. 4 blocks 408, 410, 412, and 414 and [0041]-[0042] correction factor implemented in terms of increasing or decreasing nozzle temperature (from the temperature at the dispensing step) corresponding to an amount of fluid dispensed; FIG. 9 blocks 906, 908, 910, and 912 and [0072]-[0073]) , wherein the flux amount correction factor is applicable to the soldering machine during a fluxing process (as set forth in the grounds for rejecting claim 29, the calibration correction is applied for fluxing process) , to reduce the difference between the sprayed amount of flux and the expected amount of flux ([0041]-[0042] application of nozzle temperature correction results in changing amount of dispensed fluid to reduce the disparity from the specified/desired dot size; [0072]-[0073]) .” As to claim 31, Abernathy teaches “[t]he method according to claim 30, wherein the at least one calibration flux amount setting comprises at least one calibration open time setting (FIG. 9 blocks 908 and 912 and [0072]-[0073] piston stroke length increased or decreased to increase or decrease amount of fluid dispensed. Examiner notes that increasing/decreasing stroke length corresponds to increase/decrease in travel time of piston 41 and lower rod 45 (FIG. 2) that determines open time of nozzle 48 such that the calibration amount setting (stroke length) effectively entails open time setting) , the calibration open time setting defining the duration for which the nozzle is open (stroke length corresponds to and therefore defines a corresponding duration for which the nozzle is open) .” As to claim 32, Abernathy teaches “[t]he method according to claim 31, wherein the flux amount correction factor is applied or is applicable to an operational open time of the nozzle during the fluxing process (FIG. 3 dot size calibration/correction (block 306) applied for subsequent dispensing operations (block 328)) .” As to claim 33, Abernathy teaches “[t]he method according to claim 30,” and further discloses that the viscous fluid supply may include a pressurized tank (FIG. 2 supply 42 pressurized via voltage to pressure transducer 72, [0031]) and that it is known in the art to use variation of the supply pressure to control dispensing ([0006] known to control dispensed weight/dot size by varying supply pressure) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, in view of Abernathy’s disclosure that fluid supply pressure that may be controllably applied via a pressurized supply tank may be used to control amounts of dispensed fluid, to have applied tank pressurization control in addition or as an alternative to the disclosed nozzle temperature or stroke length fluid amount setting, such that in combination the method is configured such that “the at least one calibration flux amount setting comprises at least one calibration flux tank pressure setting, the flux tank containing the flux which is fed to the nozzle.” Such a combination would amount to selecting a known design option for controlling viscous fluid dispensing to achieve predictable results. Examiner acknowledges that in [0006] Abernathy expresses a lack of preference for fluid dispensing control techniques such as control loops that use supply pressure or impact hammer strokes. However, Examiner submits that such lack of preference relates to generalized concerns (additional components, costs, reliability) regarding a list of alternative dispensing control means, not whether the supply pressure control in particular should not be incorporated in (e.g., are not practically workable with) the disclosed embodiments in which nozzle temperature or piston stroke length are used to control dispensing amounts. In sum, Examiner submits that while Abernathy expresses a preference for nozzle temperature or stroke length for calibration amount setting, Abernathy does not teach away from using tank supply pressurization as being an available, albeit in some situations a less preferable, option. As to claim 34, Abernathy teaches “[t]he method according to claim 33, wherein the flux amount correction factor is applied or is applicable to an operational flux tank pressure during the fluxing process (FIG. 3 dot size calibration/correction (block 306) applied for subsequent dispensing operations (block 328)) .” As to claim 35, Abernathy teaches “[t]he method according to claim 30, where the amount of flux sprayed from the nozzle is measured by measuring the amount of flux spreading onto a surface onto which the flux is sprayed (FIG. 4 block 404 and [0040] dot size calibration includes measuring dot diameter (spreading of fluid volume) on work surface 74) .” As to claim 36, Abernathy teaches “[t]he method according to claim 35, wherein the amount of flux spreading is measured using an optical device ([0040] camera used to determine diameter of dot) .” As to claim 37, as best understood and interpreted in view of the grounds for rejecting claim 37 under 112(b), Abernathy teaches “[t]he method according to claim 30, wherein the amount of flux sprayed from the nozzle is measured using an optical sensor ([0040] camera (optical sensor) used to determine diameter/size of dot) , for example a laser fork sensor or a high-speed camera.” As to claim 38, Abernathy teaches “[t]he method according to claim 29, wherein the at least one calibration flux setting comprises a nozzle location (FIG. 6 blocks 602 and 604 and [0049] dot placement calibration including determining dot location, which corresponds to moving nozzle location) , such that flux sprayed onto a surface by the nozzle when the nozzle is located at the nozzle location is expected to have a center at an expected spray location (FIG. 6 blocks 602, 604, and 606 and [0049] fluid dispensed at locations determined by nozzle motion (as set by control settings existing during step 602) and the dispensed locations including center locations are compared against the nozzle locations (locations at which the dispensing is expected but for a horizontal motion component of the droplets induced by nozzle motion as would occur as described in [0048]) to determine corresponding offset) , and wherein the parameter comprises a direction of flux sprayed by the nozzle (the determined offset entails determining a directionality of spray induced in part by the horizontal motion component) , the expected flux result comprises the expected spray location (expected spray location without offset (i.e., nozzle location)) , the obtained flux result comprises an actual spray location (measured dot location) , which is measured by locating the center of the sprayed flux on the surface ([0049] dot location determined in terms of center coordinates of dots) , and the flux result correction factor comprises at least one position correction factor ([0049] offset for placement calibration (correction) determined between expected (nozzle position) and actual (dot location)) , wherein the at least one position correction factor is applied or is applicable to the nozzle location during a fluxing process (FIG. 606 and [0049] offset between dispense position and dot location stored; FIG. 3 blocks 318 and 328 and [0051]-[0052] offset applied for subsequent fluid dispensing operations) to reduce the difference between the expected spray location and the actual spray location (expected spray position effectively relocated from nozzle position to dispensed dot position via application of offset) .” As to claim 39, Abernathy teaches “[a] method of calibrating a nozzle for use in a fluxing process in a soldering machine, the method comprising the steps of: calibrating the amount of flux sprayed by a nozzle using the method according to claim 38 (FIGS. 4 and 9 size/weight of dot dispensed by nozzle is the parameter calibrated) ; and calibrating the direction of flux sprayed by the nozzle using the method according to claim 38 (FIG. 6 placement of dot dispensed by nozzle calibrated in process in which as described in [0048]-[0049] directionality of spray including horizontal motion component is entailed within the calibration (offset determination effectuates calibration of spray direction); FIG. 3 both dot size and dot placement calibration included in an overall calibration process) .” As to claim 41, Abernathy teaches “[t]he method according to claim 38, wherein the actual spray location is located using a camera ([0049] camera used to determine dot locations) .” As to claim 43, as best understood and interpreted in view of the grounds for rejecting claim 43 under 112(b), Abernathy teaches “[a] method of monitoring the performance of a soldering machine (Abstract method in which size-related physical characteristic of droplet dot determined and used for adjusting control parameter of droplet dispenser; [0028] method applicable for a variety of viscous fluid dispensers including for soldering) , the method comprising monitoring at least one of the flux result correction factor ([0062] maximum velocity periodically recalibrated (effectively monitoring the previous calibration results) for more accurate dispensing a desired amount of viscous fluid) or the position correction factor calculated according to claim 38.” As to claim 46, Abernathy teaches “[a]” [fluid dispensing] “nozzle calibration apparatus (FIGS. 1 and 2 depicting non-contacting viscous fluid jetting system) for calibrating a parameter of a” [fluid dispensing] “nozzle (Abstract system in which size-related physical characteristic of droplet dot used for adjusting control parameter of droplet dispenser (nozzle 48 in FIG. 2), which as characterized on [0010] entails calibration; FIG. 3) , the” [fluid dispensing] “nozzle being for use in a soldering machine ([0028] method applicable for a variety of viscous fluid dispensers including for soldering) , the apparatus comprising: at least one sensor (FIGS. 1 and 2 camera 16) configured to measure an obtained” [fluid dispensing] “result when” [viscous fluid] “is sprayed from a nozzle (FIG. 2 droplets 34 dispensed from nozzle 48 ; FIG. 4 blocks 404 and 406 and [0040]-[0041] dots resulting from fluid dispensing are measured using camera) using at least one calibration” [fluid dispensing] “setting (FIG. 4 block 402, [0040] calibration process including dispensing the fluid (inherently at a given dispensing setting such as temperature and/or stroke length, prior to potential adjustment of the setting)) ; and processing circuitry (FIG. 2 computer 18, [0026]-[0027] system is computer controlled/implemented) configured to: calculate the difference between the measured obtained” [fluid dispensing] “result and an expected” [fluid dispensing] “result (FIG. 4 blocks 408 and 412 and [0041]-[0042] determine difference between dispensed dots and specified/desired dot size; FIG. 9 blocks 906 and 910 and [0072]-[0073]) ; and calculate a” [fluid dispensing] “result correction factor corresponding to the at least one calibration” [fluid dispensing] “setting (FIG. 4 blocks 408, 410, 412, and 414 and [0041]-[0042] nozzle temperature corrected (increased or decreased); FIG. 9 blocks 906, 908, 910, and 912 and [0072]-[0073] stroke length corrected (increased or decreased)) , wherein the” [fluid dispensing] “result correction factor is applicable to the soldering machine during a” [fluid dispensing] “process ([0028] method applicable for a variety of viscous fluid dispensers including for soldering; FIG. 3 dot size calibration/correction (block 306) applied for subsequent dispensing operations (block 328)) , to reduce the difference between the sprayed” [fluid dispensing] “result and the expected” [fluid dispensing] “result ([0041] nozzle temperature increased if dispensed dot is smaller than specified/desired dot to address disparity); [0042] nozzle temperature decreased if dispensed dot is larger than specified/desired dot to address disparity; [0072] increase stroke length if dispensed dot is smaller than specified/desired dot to address disparity; [0073] decrease stroke length if dispensed dot is larger than specified/desired dot to address disparity) .” Regarding the apparatus being for calibrating a parameter of a “flux” nozzle and the fluid being a sprayed “flux,” Abernathy’s embodiments describe the viscous material in an open-ended manner (e.g., [0028] describing applications for PC board substrates in which various viscous fluids including solder) and furthermore discloses in the background ([0003]-[0004]) that viscous fluids including solder flux are examples of types of viscous fluids that require dispensing control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, in view of Abernathy’s disclosure of soldering flux as a type of viscous fluid requiring dispensing control to have implemented Abernathy’s apparatus as an flux nozzle calibration apparatus using a “fluxing” process as the viscous fluid dispensing process such that consequently the sprayed viscous fluid is a sprayed flux and the corresponding measuring and calculating steps are implemented with the viscous fluid being flux. Such a combination would amount to selecting known features in known ways to achieve predictable results. As to claim 47, Abernathy teaches “[t]he flux nozzle calibration apparatus of claim 46, further comprising memory circuitry (FIG. 2 computer 18 including memory 54; [0026]-[0027] system is controlled/implemented by computer 18) configured to store any number of: the parameter of a flux nozzle ([0026]-[0027] computer 18 describing as controlling operations of the system and therefore would store (e.g., via memory 54) parameters determined/processed by the implemented method including flux nozzle parameters) ; the measured obtained flux result ([0026]-[0027] computer 18 describing as controlling operations of the system and therefore would store (e.g., via memory 54) parameters determined/processed by the implemented method including measured obtained flux result) ; the expected flux result ([0026]-[0027] computer 18 describing as controlling operations of the system and therefore would store (e.g., via memory 54) parameters determined/processed by the implemented method including expected flux result) ; the at least one calibration flux setting ([0026]-[0027] computer 18 describing as controlling operations of the system and therefore would store (e.g., via memory 54) parameters determined/processed by the implemented method including calibration flux setting) ; and the flux result correction factor corresponding to the at least one calibration flux setting ([0026]-[0027] computer 18 describing as controlling operations of the system and therefore would store (e.g., via memory 54) parameters determined/processed by the implemented method including flux result correction factor corresponding to the at least one calibration flux setting) . As to claim 48, Abernathy teaches “[t]he flux nozzle calibration apparatus of claim 47, further comprising a calibration surface which is configured to receive the flux which is sprayed from the nozzle (FIG. 2 calibration work surface 74 configured to receive droplets from droplet generator 12 when droplet generator 12 positioned over surface 74, [0040]) .” 07-22-aia AIA Claim 40 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abernathy as applied to claim 38 above, and further in view of Hartmeier (US 2020/0338585 A1) . As to claim 40, Abernathy teaches “[t]he method according to claim 38,” and further teaches a distinct calibration surface (FIG. 2 calibration work surface 74), but does not teach “wherein the surface is paper.” Hartmeier discloses a method/system for closed-loop fluid jetting control that includes adjusting/calibrating dispensing of viscous fluids (Abstract) in which the test/calibration surface is paper (FIG. 6 sample substrate 688, [0073] sample substrate 688 may be paper) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have applied Hartmeier’s teaching of using paper as a substrate for testing/calibrating viscous fluid dispenser metrics to the method taught by Abernathy such that in combination the method is configured such that the surface is paper. Such a combination would amount to selecting a known design option for material to be used for viscous fluid dispensing testing to achieve predictable results. As to claim 42, Abernathy teaches “[t]he method according to claim 38,” but does not appear to teach “wherein the actual spray location is located by measuring the deviation of spray from the nozzle using at least two high-speed cameras.” Hartmeier discloses a method/system for closed-loop fluid jetting control that includes adjusting/calibrating dispensing of viscous fluids (Abstract) in which spray location in terms of directionality of fluid spray is determined ([0021], [0025], and [0045] determine fluid characteristics including spray directionality, which inherently is a factor of the location of spray deposits) by measuring deviation of spray ([0021], [0025], [0045], [0096], and [0098] determine fluid characteristics including spray directionality (directionality entails deviation of direction; [0102] directionality of spray) from a nozzle ([0045] measurements performed with respect to fluid dispensed from a nozzle) using two high-speed cameras ([0046]-[0047] light sensor configuration (per [0053] light sensor may be camera) includes multiple cameras; [0045] camera captures in-flight fluid characteristics (high-speed capture); [0055] camera configuration may include high-speed video; FIG. 5 first and second cameras 568a and 568b) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have applied Hartmeier’s teaching of using two high-speed cameras to capture in-flight fluid dispensing characteristics including directionality of spray that corresponds to spray deposition to the method taught by Abernathy, which discloses relevance of spray directionality in calibrating for dot placement, such that in combination the method is configured such that the actual spray location is located by measuring the deviation of spray from the nozzle using at least two high-speed cameras. The motivation would have been to utilize a means for tracking in-flight fluid characteristics that convey information regarding actual location of dispensed spray for determining potential calibration/offset required for determinative fluid placement that additionally may convey other fluid spray characteristics (e.g., velocity) that may be helpful in more comprehensively calibrating a spray dispenser as disclosed by Hartmeier . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abernathy as applied to claim 43 above, and further in view of Schaefer (US 2020/0101548 A1) . As to claim 44, Abernathy teaches “[t]he method according to claim 43,” but does not appear to teach “wherein at least one of the flux amount correction factor, the at least one position correction factor, or the amount of flux spreading are used to determine if the nozzle requires maintenance or cleaning.” Schaefer discloses a method/system for monitoring the state of flux spray (Abstract) that includes using spray test imaging to determine spray amount patterns (correction factor) indicative of clogging and/or contamination of a nozzle (conditions indicating nozzle requires maintenance/cleaning) ([0018] imaging of spray jet to deducing clogging/contamination via amount of flux) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have applied Schaefer’s teaching of using test spray amount testing for a flux nozzle for determining conditions such as nozzle clogging/contamination that warrant maintenance/cleaning to the method taught by Abernathy such that in combination the method is configured such that a flux amount correction factor (determination of an amount of flux during the test phase of calibration) is used to determine if the nozzle requires maintenance or cleaning. The motivation would have been to leverage the determined flux amount variation to determine whether cleaning/maintenance of the nozzle may be useful in optimizing spraying performance as disclosed by Schaefer . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abernathy in view of Schaefer as applied to claim 44 above, and in further view of Hayashi (US 2017/0368628 A1) . As to claim 45, the combination of Abernathy and Schaefer teaches “[t]he method according to claim 44,” and in addition to teaching detection of nozzle condition requiring maintenance/cleaning, Schaefer suggests nozzle cleaning by disclosing that alcohol may be dispensed through the fluxing nozzle ([0040]). Prior to the effective filing date, cleaning flux nozzles was known and using alcohol was a known cleaning agent for fluid dispensing nozzles was also known. For example, Hayashi discloses a method for operating fluxing nozzles ([0022]) that includes “performing a cleaning routine with the nozzle, the cleaning routine comprising” “applying cleaning alcohol to the nozzle ([0070] nozzle device cleaned by periodically ejecting alcohol from the nozzle device) .” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have applied Hayashi’s teaching of cleaning a flux dispensing nozzle by applying cleaning alcohol to the method taught by Abernathy as modified by Schaefer such that in combination the method includes “performing a cleaning routine with the nozzle, the cleaning routine comprising” “applying cleaning alcohol to the nozzle.” The motivation for implementing the cleaning routine would have been to ensure optimal nozzle dispensing operation as suggested by Hayashi and the use of alcohol would amount to selecting a known design option for cleaning flux nozzles to achieve predictable results. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W BACA whose telephone number is (571)272-2507. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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. /MATTHEW W. BACA/Examiner, Art Unit 2857 /ANDREW SCHECHTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/576,889 Page 2 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/576,889 Page 3 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/576,889 Page 4 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/576,889 Page 5 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/576,889 Page 6 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/576,889 Page 7 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/576,889 Page 8 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/576,889 Page 9 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/576,889 Page 10 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/576,889 Page 11 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/576,889 Page 12 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/576,889 Page 13 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/576,889 Page 14 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/576,889 Page 15 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/576,889 Page 16 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/576,889 Page 17 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/576,889 Page 18 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/576,889 Page 19 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/576,889 Page 20 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/576,889 Page 21 Art Unit: 2857
Prosecution Insights