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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 2025-12-05 has been entered. Claim(s) 1 and 3-15 remain pending in this application. Claim(s) 8 and 15 have been amended. Claim(s) 2 have been canceled.
Claim 8 and 15 were amended to overcome the objection made in the previous office action. This amendment is acceptable and the objection to the claims has been withdrawn.
Claim 2 was cancelled and therefore the 35 USC 112(d) rejection made in the previous office action is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2025-12-05 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 7-9 (and the top of page 11) that the technical means of Krause and Yamamoto are incompatible with each other as Krause is used to adjust the position of a contact’s position and therefore the thermal pathway in Krause is the absorption surface > gripping surface > test contact > solder joint. This results in the test contact being inevitably heated, which the claimed invention avoids. Additionally, applicant argues Yamamoto relies on heating the entire solder region from above, whereas applicant’s invention as claimed uses localized heating and applies heating only to the blade. Therefore, these structural differences result in a fundamentally different technical approach and effect.
The examiner respectfully disagrees In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The teachings of Krause in view of Yamamoto teach the heating method where heat is localized onto a heat absorption surface, taught by Krause and a blade for severing a solder connection taught by Yamamoto. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the blade of Yamamoto could be made of the heat absorption surface taught by Krause as indicated in the previous office action.
Additionally, Applicant argues on page 9 that, since the blade of Yamamoto simply drops on the solder after it softens, Yamamoto does not teach using a control device to precisely drive the arm such that the blade element can perform a cutting movement with defined speed and timing both during descent and retraction.
The examiner respectfully disagrees In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “blade element can perform a cutting movement with defined speed and timing both during descent and retraction”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim states “control device is configured for moving the blade element via a movement of the arm in relation to the test-contact arrangement in order to sever the at least one solder connection…” and as detailed in the previous rejection, Yamamoto teaches a control device, 36, that controls and arm, 22, with a blade, 25, and that this blade does sever at least one solder connection. There is no mention in the claim about finely moving the arm/blade in a vertical direction.
Additionally, Applicant argues on page 10 and the 2nd paragraph on page 11 that because Krause and Yamamoto differ fundamentally in their technical purpose and operative mechanisms that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to combine them with each other as the combination of Krause in view of Yamamoto would result in an unjustified design since the solder is already melted.
The examiner respectfully disagrees It appears applicant is intending to argue that the entirety of Krause must be combined with the entirety of Yamamoto and that combination must result in a non-redundant operative apparatus. However, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The combined teaching of Krause in view of Yamamoto is the direct heating of a heat absorption surface of Krause with the blade of Yamamoto. The motivation to combine the references is indicated in the previous office action and reiterated below.
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.
Claims 1-4, and 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krause (DE-102018119137-A1 – From applicant IDS, refer to PGPUB US-20210299800-A1 for English translation and cited reference paragraphs) in view of Yamamoto (US-20090045245-A1 – From applicant IDS).
Regarding Claim 1, Krause teaches an apparatus for repairing a test-contact arrangement
a test-contact carrier (Fig 1: test contact carrier, 12) and a plurality of test contacts (Fig 1: test contacts, 11) which are each spaced apart from each other on at least one contact surface of the test-contact carrier (Spacing can be seen in Figs 1 and 3, Fig 2 shows a contact surface, 14, Para [0022]) and of which at least two are connected via at least one solder connection via a solder bridge to be repaired,
the apparatus comprising the following:
a movable arm (Though not shown, Figs 1 and 3 show a gripping tool, 23, and Para [0032] teaches it can be moved, therefore there is an arm moving this gripping tool) at whose end effector (Figs 1,3: gripping tool, 23) at least one heat- conductive receptacle (Fig 3: gripping element, 27, Para [0015] teaches that no heat transfer resistance is realized between the absorption surface and gripping surface, which are on the gripper) is formed, at which a heat-absorption surface is formed (Fig 3: absorption surface, 33, Para [0030] teaches the gripping element has an outer surface, 32, on which the absorption surface is realized);
a heating device (Fig 3: laser unit, 24) configured for heating the heat-absorption surface
a temperature measuring device (Fig 3: temperature measuring unit, 25) configured for measuring a radiation temperature of a solder material of the solder connection (Para [0032] teaches the measuring of the temperature of the solder material).
While Krause does teach that the gripping tool is controlled, (Para [0027-0028] teach that the gripping tool is controlled). Krause does not explicitly teach a control device configured for controlling.
Additionally, Krause does not teach that the receptacle is configured for receiving at least one heat-conductive blade element, and
the control device is configured for moving the blade element via a movement of the arm in relation to the test-contact arrangement in order to sever the at least one solder connection so the at least one solder bridge to be repaired is removable.
However, Yamamoto teaches a control device configured for controlling a movement of the arm (Para [0046] teaches a control unit, 36, that supplies control signals to a movement mechanism, 26, which controls the movement of an arm, 22, Para [0046]),
the receptacle is configured for receiving at least one blade element (Para [0037] with reference to Figs 2-11 teaches a dividing plate, 21, which comprises plate body, 24, and a blade, 25), and
the control device is configured for moving the blade element via a movement of the arm in relation to the test-contact arrangement in order to sever the at least one solder connection so the at least one solder bridge to be repaired is removable (Para [0048-0050] with reference to Figs 7-9, teaches a control unit moving the blade element via a movement arm which is used to cut a solder bridge 51/51a). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the apparatus of Krause to incorporate the control device and blade element of Yamamoto. A motivation for this modification is the blade element may reliably prevent the recombination of the molten solder as taught by Yamamoto is para [0020].
While Yamamoto does not explicitly teach the blade is a heat-conductive blade. The combination of Krause in view of Yamamoto does teach a heat-conductive blade as Krause teaches a heat-conductive surface (Para [0015] teaches no heat transfer resistance is realized between surfaces.) Therefore, 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 the blade of Yamamoto to have a heat-conductive surface as taught in Krause. A motivation for this modification is to heat up the solder so that it is molten, as is taught in Krause in para [0030].
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Krause in view of Yamamoto, as presented with respect to claim 1, teaches wherein the control device is configured for moving the arm in such a manner that the at least one blade element carries out a cutting movement via which the at least one solder connection is severable (Yamamoto - Para [0048-0050] with reference to Figs 7-9, teaches a control unit moving the blade element via a movement arm which is used to cut a solder bridge 51/51a). These features are necessarily taught by the combination.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Krause in view of Yamamoto, as presented with respect to claim 1, teaches wherein the blade element has a heat-conductive connection to the heat-absorption surface and is thus heated in such a manner that the at least one solder connection is heated to a softening temperature of the solder material (Krause - Para [0015] teaches no heat transfer resistance is realized between surfaces of the gripper and Para [0030] teaches the surfaces transfer heat to the solder to heat the solder material until the softening temperature of the solder is reached). These features are necessarily taught by the combination.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Krause in view of Yamamoto as presented with respect to claim 1, teaches wherein the heating device comprises a laser unit configured for heating the heat-absorption surface via a laser beam to be directed thereon (Krause - Para [0030] teaches a laser unit, 24, heating the gripping element, 27, which has the absorption unit on it). These features are necessarily taught by the combination.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Krause in view of Yamamoto as presented with respect to claim 1, wherein the temperature measuring device comprises a temperature-control unit configured for regulating a thermal performance of the heating device as a function of the radiation temperature of the solder material (Krause - Para [0032] teaches the temperature measuring unit, 25, may measure the radiation reflection of the solder material and switch itself off after the desired temperature is reached, therefore the temperature measuring unit a means for controlling itself). These features are necessarily taught by the combination.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Krause in view of Yamamoto as presented with respect to claim 1, wherein the receptacle has a gripper or a vacuum suction unit configured for receiving the at least one blade element (Krause - Fig 3 shows a gripper gripping a contact, 21, and moving it and would therefore be configured to grip a blade element). These features are necessarily taught by the combination.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Krause in view of Yamamoto as presented with respect to claim 1, wherein the blade element has a sabre grind (Yamamoto - Figs 6-9 appear to show a blade with a sabre grind). These features are necessarily taught by the combination.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Krause in view of Yamamoto as presented with respect to claim 1, teaches at least one test-contact arrangement which comprises a test-contact carrier (Krause - Fig 1: test contact carrier, 12) and a plurality of test contacts (Krause - Fig 1: test contacts, 11) which are each spaced apart from each other on at least one contact surface of the test-contact carrier (Krause - Spacing can be seen in Figs 1 and 3, Fig 2 shows a contact surface, 14, Para [0022]) and of which at least two are connected via at least one solder connection via a solder bridge to be repaired (Yamamoto - Figs 6-9 shows a solder bridge, 51a, between two contacts being repaired) and comprising apparatus according to claim 1 (Refer to claim 1 rejection). These features are necessarily taught by the combination.
Regarding Claim 10, Krause teaches a method for repairing a test-contact arrangement which comprises a test-contact carrier (Fig 1: test contact carrier, 12) and a plurality of test contacts (Fig 1: test contacts), 11) which are each spaced apart from each other on at least one contact surface of the test-contact carrier (Spacing can be seen in Figs 1 and 3, Fig 2 shows a contact surface, 14, Para [0022]),
the method comprising the following steps:
heating a receptacle of an end effector via a heat-absorption surface formed thereon (Para [0030] teaches the heating of a heat absorption surface);
measuring a radiation temperature of a solder material of the solder connection (Para [0032] teaches measuring the temperature of the solder material),
Krause does not teach that at least two contacts are connected via at least one solder connection via a solder bridge to be repaired;
The method steps of:
moving the end effector in relation to the test-contact arrangement;
wherein the receptacle has at least one heat-conductive blade element and the movement of the end effector in relation to the test-contact arrangement is controlled in such a manner that the at least one solder connection is severed by the blade element in order to remove the at least one solder bridge to be repaired.
However, Yamamoto teaches at least two contacts are connected via at least one solder connection via a solder bridge to be repaired (Figs 6-9 shows a solder bridge, 51a, between two contacts being repaired),
moving the end effector in relation to the test-contact arrangement (Para [0046] with reference to Figs 6-9 teaches moving the end effector to the test contactor arrangement);
wherein the receptacle has at least one blade element (Para [0037] with reference to Figs 2-11 teaches a dividing plate, 21, which comprises plate body, 24, and a blade, 25, and
the movement of the end effector in relation to the test-contact arrangement is controlled in such a manner that the at least one solder connection is severed by the blade element in order to remove the at least one solder bridge to be repaired (Para [0048-0050] with reference to Figs 7-9, teaches a control unit moving the blade element via a movement arm which is used to cut a solder bridge 51/51a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the apparatus of Krause to incorporate the blade element and movement of Yamamoto. A motivation for this modification is the blade element cutting through the solder may reliably prevent the recombination of the molten solder as taught by Yamamoto is para [0020].
While Yamamoto does not explicitly teach the blade is a heat-conductive blade. The combination of Krause in view of Yamamoto does teach a heat-conductive blade as Krause teaches a heat-conductive surface (Para [0015] teaches no heat transfer resistance is realized between surfaces.) Therefore, 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 the blade of Yamamoto to have a heat-conductive surface as taught in Krause. A motivation for this modification is to heat up the solder so that it is molten, as is taught in Krause in para [0030].
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Krause in view of Yamamoto as presented with respect to claim 1, teaches wherein the blade element has a heat-conductive connection to the heat-absorption surface and is thus heated in such a manner that the at least one solder connection is heated to a softening temperature of the solder material (Krause - Para [0015] teaches no heat transfer resistance is realized between surfaces of the gripper and Para [0030] teaches the surfaces transfer heat to the solder to heat the solder material until the softening temperature of the solder is reached.). These features are necessarily taught by the combination.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Krause in view of Yamamoto as presented with respect to claim 1, teaches the heat-absorption surface is irradiated with a laser beam or a nitrogen fluid flow flows against the heat- absorption surface in order to heat the receptacle and the blade element (Krause - Para [0030] teaches a laser unit, 24, heating the gripping element, 27, which has the absorption unit on it). These features are necessarily taught by the combination.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Krause in view of Yamamoto as presented with respect to claim 1, teaches a thermal performance for heating the receptacle is regulated as a function of the measured radiation temperature of the solder material (Krause - Para [0032] teaches the temperature measuring unit, 25, may measure the radiation reflection of the solder material and switch itself off after the desired temperature is reached). These features are necessarily taught by the combination.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Krause in view of Yamamoto as presented with respect to claim 1, teaches the at least one blade element is received by a gripper or vacuum suction unit provided at the receptacle before commencing the repair process and is disposed at the receptacle (Yamamoto - Figs 6-9 show the blade attached at the receptacle. Krause teaches a gripper as the receptacle and teaches it gripping in Fig 3.). These features are necessarily taught by the combination.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Krause in view of Yamamoto as presented with respect to claim 1, teaches the at least one solder connection is severed by the at least one blade element (Yamamoto - Para [0048-0050] with reference to Figs 7-9, teaches a control unit moving the blade element via a movement arm which is used to cut a solder bridge 51/51a) having a sabre grind (Yamamoto - Figs 6-9 appear to show a blade with a sabre grind). These features are necessarily taught by the combination.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krause in view of Yamamoto in view of Howland et al. (US-20050241175-A1).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Krause in view of Yamamoto does not teach wherein the heating device is configured for heating the heat-absorption surface via a hot nitrogen fluid flow. However, Howland teaches wherein the heating device is configured for heating the heat-absorption surface via a hot nitrogen fluid flow (Para [0029] teaches using hot nitrogen gas as a means to heat up a probe). Therefore, 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 the healing device of the combination to incorporate the ho nitrogen flow of Howland. A motivation for this modification is nitrogen gas aids in contamination removal as taught by Howland in Para [0029].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH J BARRON whose telephone number is (571)272-0902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:30-17:30 ET.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at (571) 270-5628. 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.
/JEREMIAH J BARRON/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858