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) 17-24, 26, 28-30, and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US2002/0036223A1) in view of Cao et al. (CN-112139620A).
With respect to claim 17, Saito teaches a method of calibrating the operation of soldering apparatus for use in a soldering machine, the soldering apparatus comprising at least one controller (PC 29a and/or CPU) (paragraphs 128-140) and at least one nozzle (101/22) which is configured to apply solder to an electronics board (substrate 4), in use, the method comprising: providing machine settings to the soldering apparatus, the machine settings including a nozzle target calibration position and at least one solder setting for the at least one nozzle (figures 12-14; and paragraphs 186-227): positioning, by the soldering apparatus, the at least one nozzle according to the nozzle target calibration position (figures 12-14; and paragraphs 17-25, 37-44, 86, 125-126, 130, 132, and 186-227); pumping solder by the soldering apparatus from the at least one nozzle according to the at least one solder setting, when the at least one nozzle is positioned according to the target calibration position (figures 12-14; and paragraphs 186-227); obtaining, via a camera (35) of the soldering apparatus, at least one image of the soldering apparatus when the at least one nozzle is positioned according to the nozzle target calibration position (figures 12-14; and paragraphs 89, 186-227); determining, from the at least one image, at least one nozzle characteristic (figures 12-14; and paragraphs 186-227); and adjusting, the machine settings to reduce a difference between the at least one nozzle characteristic determined from the at least one image, and a corresponding expected at least one nozzle characteristic (figures 12-14; and paragraphs 186-227).
Saito does not teach that the determining and adjusting steps are performed by the soldering apparatus; however, Cao teaches full-automatic control over selective wave soldering with calibration (correction) (title; figures; and machine translation).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the full-automatic control of Cao to perform the determining and adjusting steps of Saito in order to in order to greatly improve consistency of soldering, repeatability, reliability, and traceability. MPEP 2144.04 is clear that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958).
With respect to claim 18, Saito teaches wherein the at least one nozzle characteristic comprises at least one of an actual calibration position of the at least one nozzle or an orientation of the at least one nozzle (paragraphs 196-198, reference and optimum values).
With respect to claim 19, Saito teaches wherein the at least one image of the soldering apparatus is obtained while pumping solder (jet streaming) from the at least one nozzle (paragraphs 89, 188, 202, and 206).
With respect to claim 20, Saito teaches wherein the at least one nozzle characteristic comprises at least one of a geometric characteristic (angle) of the solder flowing from the at least one nozzle or a temperature of the solder flowing from the at least one nozzle (paragraphs 126, 130, and 196-198).
With respect to claim 21, Saito teaches wherein the geometric characteristic comprises at least one of a height or a shape of the flow of solder from the at least one nozzle (a picture of the jet-streaming condition would intrinsically include height or shape) (paragraphs 188, 231, and 237).
With respect to claim 22, Saito teaches wherein the machine settings further comprise a board target calibration position (according to the instant specification the board target calibration position may be anywhere within the bounds of movement of the conveyor C), wherein the soldering apparatus further comprises a conveyor (5) which positions the board according to the board target calibration position, in use, and wherein the at least one nozzle characteristic comprises a distance between the at least one nozzle and the conveyor (figure 12; and paragraph 206). Since the substrate (4) that is subject to wave soldering is transported through the soldering process by conveyor (5), the jet-streaming condition is intrinsically reflective of a distance between the at least one nozzle through which jet-streaming occurs and the conveyor.
With respect to claim 23, Saito teaches wherein the machine settings further comprise a board target calibration position (the board target calibration position may be anywhere within the bounds of movement of the conveyor C), wherein the soldering apparatus further comprises a conveyor (5) which positions the board according to the board target calibration position, in use, and wherein the method further comprises: positioning the board using the conveyor according to the board target calibration position, wherein the board target calibration position (the location where the jet-streaming condition is imaged) is expected to position the board relative to the at least one nozzle such that the at least one nozzle is adjacent a soldering or calibration location on the board; determining, by the controller (hybrid controller made up of the engineer and the control means), at least one board characteristic (soldering results) from the at least one image (paragraphs 188, 231, and 237); and adjusting, by the controller (hybrid controller made up of the engineer and the control means), the machine settings to reduce a difference between the at least one board characteristic determined from the at least one image, and a corresponding expected at least one board characteristic (figures 12-14; and paragraphs 186-227).
With respect to claim 24, Saito teaches wherein the at least one board characteristic comprises at least one of: an actual calibration position of the board; a location of each soldering or calibration location on the board; a distance between the at least one nozzle and the corresponding solder or calibration location on the board; or a temperature of the board (the jet-streaming condition and soldering results intrinsically comprise a location of each soldering or a distance between the at least one nozzle and the corresponding solder) (paragraphs 188, 231, and 237).
With respect to claim 26, Saito teaches wherein the at least one image is obtained using at least one camera (paragraph 188).
With respect to claim 28, Saito teaches recording (paragraphs 194, 196, 200, 227, 229, and 232) and analysing (89, 130, 140, 202, and 211) at least one of machine settings of the soldering machine, nozzle characteristics, board characteristics, or adjustments to the machine settings made claim [[16]] 17, to identify requirements for repair, maintenance, or replacement of parts of the soldering machine (paragraphs 14, 126, and 189).
With respect to claim 29, Saito teaches a soldering calibration apparatus comprising: a soldering apparatus for use in a soldering machine, the soldering apparatus comprising at least one adjustable nozzle (101/22) which is configured to apply solder to an electronics board (substrate 4), in use, and at least one pump (paragraph 91) configured to pump solder from the at least one adjustable nozzle; at least one camera (35) configured to obtain at least one image of the soldering apparatus; an operator/engineer that provides machine settings to the soldering apparatus, the machine settings including a nozzle target calibration position and at least one solder setting for the at least one nozzle (figures 12-14; and paragraphs 186-227); position the at least one nozzle according to the nozzle target calibration position (figures 12-14; and paragraphs 186-227); pump solder from the at least one nozzle according to the at least one solder setting, when the at least one nozzle is positioned according to the target calibration position (figures 12-14; and paragraphs 186-227); obtain, using the at least one camera, at least one image of the soldering apparatus when the at least one nozzle is positioned according to the nozzle target calibration position (figures 12-14; and paragraphs 186-227); determine, from the at least one image, at least one nozzle characteristic (figures 12-14; and paragraphs 186-227); and adjust the machine settings to reduce a difference between the at least one nozzle characteristic determined from the at least one image, and a corresponding expected at least one nozzle characteristic (figures 12-14; and paragraphs 186-227).
Saito does not explicitly teach a controller configured to provide machine settings to the soldering apparatus; however, Cao teaches full-automatic control over selective wave soldering with calibration (correction) (title; figures; and machine translation).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the full-automatic controller of Cao to provide the machine settings to the soldering apparatus of Saito in order to greatly improve consistency of soldering, repeatability, reliability, and traceability. MPEP 2144.04 is clear that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958).
With respect to claim 30, Saito teaches wherein the soldering apparatus further comprises a conveyor (5) which positions the board according to the board target calibration position (according to the instant specification the board target calibration position may be anywhere within the bounds of movement of the conveyor C), in use, wherein the machine settings further comprise a board target calibration position, and wherein the at least one nozzle characteristic comprises a distance between the at least one nozzle and the conveyor (figure 12; and paragraph 206). Since the substrate (4) that is subject to wave soldering is transported through the soldering process by conveyor (5), the jet-streaming condition is intrinsically reflective of a distance between the at least one nozzle through which jet-streaming occurs and the conveyor.
With respect to claim 33, Saito teaches a soldering machine comprising the soldering calibration apparatus of claim 29 (figures 12-14; and paragraphs 186-227).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito and Cao as applied to claims 17 and 23 above, and further in view of Ludwig et al. (US2004/0090963A1) (hereafter Ludwig).
With respect to claim 25, Saito and Cao do not teach wherein an identity of the board is determined from the image.
However, Ludwig teaches determining the identity of the board (paragraphs 9-11).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the board identifying process of Ludwig in the collective process of Saito and Cao in order to initiate the desired soldering program.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito and Cao as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Rouff (FR-2849915A1).
With respect to claim 31, Saito and Cao do not teach wherein the at least one camera comprises a thermal imaging camera.
However, Rouff teaches using a thermal imaging camera in wave soldering (machine translation, claim 3).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the thermal imaging camera of Rouff in the collective process of Saito and Cao in order to map the temperature of the solder and/or substrate.
Claim(s) 27 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito and Cao as applied to claims 17 and 29 above, and further in view of Ristolainen (US2011/0139855A1).
With respect to claims 27 and 32, Saito and Cao do not teach measuring oxygen level around the at least one nozzle and adjusting a nitrogen supply to the at least one nozzle to adjust the oxygen level; and an oxygen sensor configured to measure an oxygen level around the at least one nozzle, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust a nitrogen supply to the at least one nozzle to adjust the oxygen level.
However, Ristolainen teaches measuring oxygen level around the at least one nozzle and adjusting a nitrogen supply to the at least one nozzle to adjust the oxygen level (paragraphs 15-25); and an oxygen sensor configured to measure an oxygen level around the at least one nozzle, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust a nitrogen supply to the at least one nozzle to adjust the oxygen level (paragraphs 15-25).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the oxygen monitoring and nitrogen supply of Ristolainen in the collective process of Saito and Cao in order to effectively prevent oxidation during the soldering process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner agrees that Saito does not teach or suggest "determining, by the soldering calibration apparatus from the at least one image, at least one nozzle characteristic; and adjusting, by the soldering apparatus, the machine settings to reduce a difference between the at least one nozzle characteristic determined from the at least one image, and a corresponding expected at least one nozzle characteristic" or “a controller, configured to: provide machine settings to the soldering apparatus”.
However, newly cited Cao teaches a full-automatic control for selective wave soldering as set forth above in the obviousness rejection while explicitly providing motivation for using a full-automatic control.
Conclusion
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