DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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) 1-2, 10-11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barta (DE-3731714A1) in view of Goto et al. (JP-2552361B2) (hereafter Goto).
With respect to claim 1, Barta teaches an apparatus (1) for at least partially wetting a component (13) with a flux (5) (the underlined portions of the claims are merely intended use that do not positively limit the structure of the claimed apparatus), the apparatus comprising: a flux reservoir (4) including a recess filled with the flux (figure 1; and the machine translation), wherein for the at least partially wetting, the component is at least partially dipper into the flux of the recess; and wherein the flux reservoir further includes a viscosity reduction unit (sonotrode 6/intermediate piece 9/transducer 10) configured to reduce a viscosity of the flux in the flux reservoir at least in a localized region by excitation of the flux (figure 1; and the machine translation).
With respect to claim 1, Barta does not teach using hydraulic actuators for the vibration; however, Goto teaches using a hydraulic actuator (5) to vibrate a liquid storage tank (1). The courts have determined that the duplication of parts for a mere multiplied effect, which is the intent of the instant application, is not a patentable concept. Please see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) and St. Regis Paper Co. V. Bemis Co., Inc., 193 USPQ 8, 11. Thus, it would have been obvious to the artisan to use more than one actuator in order to achieve a multiplied vibrational effect.
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the hydraulic actuator of Goto on the apparatus of Barta in order to achieve the desired vibrational effect. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element (hydraulic actuator) for another (ultrasonic actuator) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See MPEP 2143.
With respect to claim 2, Barta teaches wherein the flux reservoir (4) comprises the viscosity reduction unit (6) (figure 1).
With respect to claim 10, Barta teaches wherein the flux reservoir includes a base plate (the base on which flange 7 is mounted) and a flux insert (7), wherein the flux insert is detachably positionable on the base plate and the flux insert includes the recess (volume between the fastening means that connect flange 7 to the base) to be filled with the flux (figure 1; and the machine translation).
With respect to claim 11, Barta teaches wherein the viscosity reduction unit (6) is formed in (broadest reasonable interpretation) the base plate.
With respect to claim 13, Barta teaches wherein the base plate includes positioning mechanisms (the fasteners connected to 7) that are configured to position the flux insert relative to the base plate.
Claim(s) 1-2, 10-11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denslow et al. (US 3,833,163) (hereafter Denslow) in view of Ehrhardt (US 2,321,071A) and Goto et al. (JP-2552361B2) (hereafter Goto).
With respect to claim 1, Denslow teaches an apparatus (figure 1), the apparatus comprising: a reservoir (12/26) including a recess filled with a liquid (14, such as molten solder) (figure 1); and a viscosity reduction unit (20) configured to reduce a viscosity of the liquid in the reservoir at least in a localized region by excitation of the liquid (figures 1-2; and column 2, line 34-column 4, line 20).
Denslow does not teach wherein the reservoir is a flux reservoir including a recess filled with flux, wherein for the at least partially wetting, the component is at least dipped into the flux of the recess; and using hydraulic actuators for the vibration.
However, Ehrhardt teaches filling a reservoir including a recess with both solder and flux, wherein for the at least partially wetting, the component is at least dipped into the flux of the recess (figure 1; page 1, column 2, line 17-29; and page 1, column 2, line 51-page 2, column 2, line 7).
Accordingly, at the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the flux of Ehrhardt in the solder reservoir of Denslow in order to clean the parts prior to being coated with solder.
While, Goto teaches using a hydraulic actuator (5) to vibrate a liquid storage tank (1). The courts have determined that the duplication of parts for a mere multiplied effect, which is the intent of the instant application, is not a patentable concept. Please see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) and St. Regis Paper Co. V. Bemis Co., Inc., 193 USPQ 8, 11. Thus, it would have been obvious to the artisan to use more than one actuator in order to achieve a multiplied vibrational effect.
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the hydraulic actuator of Goto on the collective apparatus of Denslow and Ehrhardt in order to achieve the desired vibrational effect. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element (hydraulic actuator) for another (ultrasonic actuator) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See MPEP 2143.
With respect to claim 2, Denslow teaches wherein the reservoir (12/26) comprises the viscosity reduction unit (20) (figure 1).
With respect to claim 10, Denslow teaches wherein the reservoir (12/26) includes a base plate (26) and a liquid insert (12), wherein the liquid insert is detachably positionable on the base plate and the insert includes the recess to be filled with the liquid (14) (figure 1; and column 2, line 34-column 4, line 20).
With respect to claim 11, Denslow teaches wherein the viscosity reduction unit (20) is formed in (broadest reasonable interpretation) the base plate (figure 1).
With respect to claim 13, Denslow teaches wherein the base plate includes positioning mechanisms (the openings in the base plate 26 that coupling bars 42 extend through) that are configured to position the liquid insert relative to the base plate (figures 1-2; and column 2, line 34-column 4, line 20).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barta and Goto.
With respect to claim 12, Barta is silent with respect to the material of the flange (7); however, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the flange (7) of Barta out of metal in order to form a robust and durable part with an extended service life.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denslow, Ehrhardt, and Goto as applied to claims 1 and 10, and further in view of Chen et al. (CN-109509571A1) (hereafter Chen).
With respect to claim 12, Denslow is silent with respect to the material of the tank (12); however, Chen teaches a flux holding tank made of stainless steel (machine translation).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the tank of Denslow out of stainless steel as taught by Chen in order to form a corrosion resistant, robust, and durable container with an extended service life.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/10/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Barta teaches where the flux reservoir (trough) contains flux and includes a sonotrode positioned beneath the flux surface. The circuit board surface is wetted with flux by ultrasonic excitation while the circuit board is held at a small, predetermined distance above the bath. Barta does not teach dipping the component into the recess of flux. Instead, the ultrasonic energy propels flux onto the board surface without immersion. In addition, Barta discloses ultrasonic excitation of the flux through a transducer and sonotrode assembly. There is no teaching or suggestion of a viscosity reduction unit employing hydraulic actuators to locally reduce viscosity. The excitation disclosed is ultrasonic, not hydraulic. In addition, the excitation is directed toward achieving uniform flux application rather than explicitly lowering viscosity. Accordingly, Barta does not teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Barta explicitly teaches that the flux extends above the sonotrode. Accordingly, a component could clearly be dipped into the bath of Barta. Furthermore, newly cited Goto teaches vibrating a liquid storage tank with a hydraulic actuator. Vibrating the flux of Barta will intrinsically reduce its viscosity.
The applicant argues that Denslow teaches a metal tank adapted to hold a liquid 14, such as molten solder. Denslow further teaches where a plurality of electroacoustic transducer assemblies are mounted to the underside of the tank surface. Denslow, however, does not disclose a flux reservoir containing a recess filled with flux into which a component is dipped. Instead, it teaches dipping components (e.g., aluminum heat exchangers) into an ultrasonically activated solder bath, not flux. Solder is filler material that melts and solidifies to create the metallurgical bond between two components. Flux, by contrast, is a chemical cleaning and wetting agent rather than a structural material. Flux removes oxides and other contaminants from the surfaces to be soldered, protects the cleaned surfaces from reoxidation during heating, and promotes solder flow by reducing surface tension. Flux and Solder are not the same thing, nor would they be interchangeable in such an application. Denslow further does not disclose hydraulic actuators to reduce viscosity. In Denslow, the excitation comes from piezoelectric ultrasonic transducers coupled to the tank wall.
The examiner agrees that Denslow does not teach a flux reservoir. However, newly cited Ehrhardt teaches filling a reservoir with both flux and solder for the purpose of cleaning the parts prior to being coated with solder in an immersion process.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KILEY SHAWN STONER whose telephone number is (571)272-1183. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday.
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, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KILEY S STONER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights