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
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) 1-9 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma USPG Pub. No.: US 2015/0015288 in view of Stockford USPG Pub. No.: US 2001/0024119. Claims 15-16-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma USPG Pub. No.: US 2015/0015288 in view of Stockford USPG Pub. No.: US 2001/0024119 in further view of Mayder et al. USPG Pub. No: US 2008/0100291.
Regarding Claim 1, Ma teaches a device comprising:
a connector configured to electrically connect a measurement device on an annular ring on a first side of a Plated Through Hole (PTH) (see figures 1 and 3, in elements 30 and 32 are connectors that electrically connects with a plurality of electrically conductive connectors 28; paragraph [0018]: "The exterior surface metal used to form the contact pads 26-28 may be patterned to provide lands surrounding the plated through holes (e.g, 1) which are larger than the diameters of the holes");
a probe connected to the measurement device and configured to touch an interior wall of the PTH at a first location (see [0020]: "test probe device 201 having a conductive elastomer test probe tip 203 that is positioned for insertion into a back-drilled plated through hole via 106 formed in a printed circuit or wire board 101"; [0022]-[0024]; Fig. 3); and
a sensor, in the measurement device, to detect electrical measurements through the PTH from the connector to the probe (paragraph [0030]: "With this testing configuration, any component mounting defects on the printed circuit board assembly caused by the assembly process can be detected using current in-circuit testing methodologies”).
Ma is silent in disclosing a motor control and a motor to move the probe in the PTH. However, Stockford discloses a motor control and a motor to move the probe in the PTH (see Stockford figure 2 and [0018]-[0020], which describes the motor system of the probe device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Ma such that the probe is motorized, as seen in Stockford, in order to have a testing system that “is automated, fast, accurate, and cost-effective” as manual testing techniques are “costly, time-consuming, and error-prone given the complexity of modern circuitry” (as discussed in Stockford [0005]).
Regarding Claims 7, the device as recited in claim 1 is specific to this method and thus it must perform the method. The method is intrinsic to the apparatus because the recited method steps will be performed during normal operation of the apparatus. Therefore, Claim 7 is also rejected.
Regarding Claims 15, the device as recited in claim 1 is specific to this method and thus it must perform the method. The method is intrinsic to the apparatus because the recited method steps will be performed during normal operation of the apparatus. However, Claim 15, in addition to the limitations recited in claim 1 that are specific to this method, also include the limitations:
a method comprising: drilling a hole in a PCB; depositing copper in the hole to form a Plated Through Hole (PTH) with an annular ring on a first side of the PTH.
Ma and Stockford are silent in explicitly teaching the above limitations, Mayder teaches:
drilling a hole in a PCB (see Mayder [0007]-[0008], in which holes are drilled into the PCB board, element 200 in figure 2);
depositing copper in the hole to form a Plated Through Hole (PTH) with an annular ring on a first side of the PTH (see Mayder Claim 1 and [0022], which describes the copper deposition process in the vias).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Ma and Stockford with the teachings of Mayder because copper has excellent electrical conduction properties (as described in Mayder [0020]) and because drilling is used for precision purposes (as described in Mayder [0007]-[0008]).
Regarding Claim 2, Ma and Stockford teach the device of claim 1, wherein the measurement device is configured to detect a voltage drop through the PTH from the annular ring to the probe (see Ma [0030] which teaches reading a voltage drop through the PTH of the annular ring).
Regarding Claim 3, Ma and Stockford teach the device of claim 1, wherein the measurement device is configured to detect a current running from the annular ring to the probe given an applied voltage (see Ma [0030] which teaches a current detection through the PTH of the annular ring).
Regarding Claim 4, Ma and Stockford teach the device of claim 1, wherein the motor is configured to incrementally step the probe along an interior surface of the PTH (see Stockford figure 2, which shows a motor actuation system that is capable of incremental steps in three degrees of freedom).
Regarding Claim 5, Ma and Stockford teach the device of claim 1, wherein the first location of the probe is based on velocity and time measurements recorded during movement of the probe (see Stockford [0015]-[0021] discussing the positioning of the probe apparatus in three dimensions over time, and figure 2 which teaches a motorized apparatus in which the location of the probe is based on velocity and time measurements; note that the language “based on” is broad enough that any suggestion of recorded velocity and or time measurements due to a controller would meet the claim limitation).
Regarding Claim 6, Ma and Stockford teach the device of claim 1, wherein an anomalous reading at a position indicates an absence of a coating at the position (see Ma [0030], in which an absence of coating would be detected in such a circumstance as described).
Regarding Claim 8, Ma and Stockford teach the method of claim 7, further comprising: recording a position of the measurement based on the velocity, direction, and travel time of the probe (see Stockford [0015]-[0021] discussing the positioning of the probe apparatus in three dimensions over time, and figure 2 which teaches a motorized apparatus in which the location of the probe is based on velocity and time measurements).
Regarding Claim 9, Ma and Stockford teach the method of claim 8 further comprising:
determining if the measurement is outside of an acceptable measurement parameter; and recording the position as an anomalous reading (see Stockford [0015]-[0021] and figure 2; note that the coating determination is a form of “outside acceptable measure” in the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding Claim 11, Ma and Stockford teach the method of claim 9 further comprising: determining, based on a resistance measurement above a threshold, that there is an absence of a coating at a position of the anomalous reading (see Ma [0030], in which an absence of coating would be detected in such a circumstance as described, qualifying as an anomalous reading).
Regarding Claim 12, Ma and Stockford teach the method of claim 7 further comprising: moving the probe to a new position along the interior wall of the PTH; and measuring the electrical properties of the PTH between the connector and the probe at the new position (see Stockford [0019] and figure 2).
Regarding Claim 13, Ma and Stockford teach the method of claim 7 further comprising: repeating the moving and measuring at to record measurements at set points along the PTH (see Stockford [0019]).
Regarding Claim 14, Ma and Stockford teach the method of claim 7 further comprising: applying a voltage to the annular ring through the connector (see Ma [0030] which teaches applying a voltage drop through the PTH of the annular ring).
Regarding Claim 16, Ma, Stockford, and Mayder teach the method of claim 15, further comprising: recording a position of the measurement based on the velocity, direction, and travel time of the probe (see Stockford [0015]-[0021] discussing the positioning of the probe apparatus in three dimensions over time, and figure 2 which teaches a motorized apparatus in which the location of the probe is based on velocity and time measurements).
Regarding Claims 17 and 19, Ma and Stockford teach the method of claims 16 and 17, respectively, further comprising: determining if the measurement is outside of an acceptable measurement parameter; and recording the position as an anomalous reading (see Stockford [0015]-[0021] and figure 2; note that the coating determination is a form of “outside acceptable measure” in the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding Claim 20, Ma, Stockford, and Mayder teach the method of claim 15 further comprising: moving the probe to a new position along the interior wall of the PTH; and measuring the electrical properties of the PTH between the connector and the probe at the new position (see Stockford figure 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
RE Claims 10 and 18, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest “based on a determination that the measurement is outside of the acceptable measurement parameter, a resistive value, wherein the calculating is based on a current reading at the probe with a known voltage being applied at the annular ring,” in combination with the other claim limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A HARRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-3573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, STEPHANIE BLOSS can be reached at (571) 272-3555. 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.
/MICHAEL A HARRISON/Examiner, Art Unit 2852