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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “applying an impact force to solder particles so that” in Lines 2-3. Grammatically, the phrase “so that” renders unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are an intended use, or part of the claimed method. Applicant is encouraged to recite method steps with positive active claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites in Lines 3-4, Claim 4 recites in Lines 3-4, Claim 11 recites In lines 3-4, Claim 12 recites in Lines 3-4, and Claim 13 recites in Lines 3-4, “causing the solder particles to hit a wall surface” and “causing the solder particles to hit each other.” The use of the term “causing” renders these claims indefinite. It is unclear what actionable and repeatable method step is encompassed by ‘causing’ a result, and it is further unclear the metes and bounds of the term ‘causing.’ It is further unclear the nexus between the act of “causing” and the method step of “applying an impact force” in Claim 1 on which the claims ultimately depend. Appropriate correction is required to establish actionable and repeatable method steps with positive active claim language.
Claims 5, 14, 15, and 16 recite “wherein in the application of the impact force, classification is performed so that a percentage of small-particle diameter solder particles becomes 1% by number or less in the total of the solder particles” in Lines 2-5. This recitation presents the following issues of clarity:
It is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase “so that” are an intended use, or part of the claimed method.
It is unclear the nexus between a “classification” step and “the application of the impact force.” The act of classifying particles is distinct from the use of a sieve or sorting device. It is unclear how the act of physically classifying particles, an observational step, is connected with the physical application of impact force.
Additionally, it is unclear how, or in what way, a classification step causes a percentage of particles to become 1% or less by number. In other words, it is unclear how classifying, an observational step determines an amount. A clearer nexus between the step of applying the impact force and yielding any percentage of particles must be established.
Claim 2 is rejected for its dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by NPL Krainer.
Regarding Claim 1, notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, NPL Krainer discloses a solder particle production method, comprising: applying an impact force to solder particles so that a no satellite particles (meeting the limitation of the instant claim for multiple adhered solder particles) are formed (Section 5.1), (meeting the limitation of the instant claim for a percentage of composite solder particles becomes 5% by number or less) in a total of the solder particles, the composite solder particles including multiple adhered solder particles.
Regarding Claim 2, NPL Krainer discloses the pressure applied is greater than atmospheric pressure (Table 5.1), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim for an impact force applied greater than gravity.
Claims 1-4 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by NPL Zeng.
Regarding Claim 1, notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, NPL Zeng discloses a solder particle production method, comprising: applying an impact force to solder particles so that a no satellite particles (meeting the limitation of the instant claim for multiple adhered solder particles) are formed (Section 5.1), (meeting the limitation of the instant claim for a percentage of composite solder particles becomes 5% by number or less) in a total of the solder particles, the composite solder particles including multiple adhered solder particles.
Regarding Claim 2, NPL Zeng discloses applying centrifugal and drag forces with airflow speeds ranging from 6 to 12 m/s (Section 2.3.2), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim for an impact force applied greater than gravity.
Regarding Claims 3 and 11, notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, NPL Zeng discloses the impact force is applied to the solder particles by causing the solder particles to hit a chamber wall surface and causing the solder particles to hit each other (Section 2.1), meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
Regarding Claims 4, 12, and 13, notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, NPL Zeng discloses the impact force is applied to the solder particles by causing the solder particles to hit a chamber wall surface and causing the solder particles to hit each other with air flow and centrifugal force (Section 2.1), meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 5, 14, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over NPL Zeng.
Regarding Claims 5, 14, 15, and 16, As established above, it remains unclear the actionable and repeatable method step intended by the word “classifying.” Nonetheless, NPL Zeng discloses a solder particle production method utilizing the same centrifugal force rotor speed (1,800 RPM) as the instantly claimed process. See Instant Specification [0015].
As the particle diameter size distribution is variable, the method of NPL Zeng encompasses particle size distributions reading on the instantly claimed limitation, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Alternatively and additionally, NPL Zeng expressly teaches increasing the air inlet velocity applied to solder particles in order to increase the uniformity of particle size distribution and improve the classification efficiency (Introduction). The number average particle diameter of the solder particles is determined by a number of parameters including, but not limited to, the material composition, powder density, rotation speed, and air inlet speed (Section 4.1).
Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to reduce the number of small-particle-diameter solder particles having a number particle diameter of 0.5X (µm) or less, where X (µm) denotes a number average particle diameter of the solder particles, to 1% by number or less in a total of the solder particles, in order to normalize the particle size, improve uniformity of particle size distribution, and increase classification efficiency based on the teachings of NPL Zeng at (Abstract, Introduction).
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The solder particle production method of Zeng et al. overlaps and encompasses the process parameters detailed in the instant Specification and would be expected to yield the same or similar results in terms of a percentage of small-particle diameter solder particles, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
JPH 05185290 A teaches a device for producing solder powder that does not produce satellite powder.
JP 2004018890 A and JP 2004211155 A teach methods for producing ultrafine particles with centrifugal force.
JP 2007321227 A teaches a method for producing solder powder without satellite powder.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORIAH S. SMOOT whose telephone number is (571)272-2634. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5pm EDT.
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 Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/M.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights