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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the “the first/second eddy current sensor comprises: a first/second thermal resistant layer comprising a nano-particle coating; and a first/second thermal resistant cap” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Note that the figures show thermal resistant layer (50) as part of the structure (48). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a solder pot height sensor configure to” in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 7-11, 14, 15, 22, and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 4, 7-11, 14, 15, 22, and 23 are dependents claim but recite “The soldering system of claim [X], comprising” which should be --“The soldering system of claim [X], further comprising”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 26 is 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 26 recites “wherein the first eddy current sensor comprises: a first thermal resistant layer… and a first thermal resistant cap disposed between the first eddy current sensor and the first thermal resistant layer”. It is unclear as to how the thermal resistant cap can be part of the sensor and yet be disposed between the sensor and another layer of the sensor; i.e. the layer and cap are part of the sensor and cannot be disposed relative to the sensor. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as noted in the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4-7, 10-13, 15, 21, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakane (JP 2019-141862 A) in view of Leap (US 6,415,972 B1), Liu et al. (CN 109360670 A), and Chika et al. “Hollow silica nanoparticles: A tiny pore with big dreams”.
Regarding claim 1, Nakane teaches:
A soldering system comprising:
a first solder wave height sensor [one of detection probes (33); figure 13] configured to generate a first sensor signal based on a first height of a soldering wave of the soldering system, [each probe sends a signal based on a height of the wave at each probe location; 0112-0113]; 0112-0113];
a second solder wave height sensor [one of detection probes (33); figure 13] configured to generate a second sensor signal based on a second height of the soldering wave of the soldering system, [each probe sends a signal based on a height of the wave at each probe location; 0112-0113]; and
control circuitry [processing unit (22A)] configured to control an operation of the soldering system based on the first sensor signal and the second sensor signal [0111-0129].
Nakane does not teach:
wherein the first solder wave height sensor comprises a first eddy current sensor and the first eddy current sensor comprises a first thermal resistant layer configured to shield the first eddy current sensor from thermal energy dissipating from the soldering wave, (and)
wherein the first thermal resistant layer comprises a nano-particle coating;
wherein the second solder wave height sensor comprises a second eddy current sensor and the second eddy current sensor comprises a second thermal resistant layer configured to shield the second eddy current sensor from thermal energy dissipating from the soldering wave, (and)
wherein the second thermal resistant layer comprises the nano-particle coating.
Concerning the sensors being eddy current sensors:
Leap teaches using eddy current sensor (52) to sense a height of solder wave (24); 4:45-5:10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that any known height sensor, including the Leap eddy current sensor, could be used in place of probes (33) since they are functionally equivalent and to do so. One would have been motivated to use the eddy current sensor because it is non-contact, does not need to be moved, due to costs, familiarity, and/or availability, or because it is a known option.
Concerning the nano-particle coating:
Liu teaches eddy current sensor (17) is thermal protected by heat insulating end cover (18), wherein the end cover comprises silicon dioxide nanometer material; page 10.
Chika teaches hollow silica nanoparticles can applied as a coating; page 807.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to cover the end of the Leap eddy current sensor with silicon dioxide nanometer material in order to thermally protect the sensor as taught by Liu and that one can apply the cover as a coating as taught by Chika since it is known to do so, minus any unexpected results.
Regarding claim 4, Nakane teaches:
comprising an electronic display configured to provide real time display of the first height and the second height [0040].
Regarding claim 5, Nakane teaches:
wherein the control circuitry is configured to determine a variation between the first height and the second height [0129].
Regarding claim 6, Nakane teaches:
wherein the control circuitry is configured to issue an alarm [buzzer] based on the variation between the first height and the second height [0040].
Regarding claim 7, Nakane teaches:
comprising a production track [substrate transport mechanism (15)], wherein the control circuitry is configured to control the production track based on the variation between the first height and the second height [0137].
Regarding claim 10, Nakane teaches:
comprising a solder wave pump [drive mechanism (14); figure 13] configured to provide a height adjustment to a soldering wave [solder wave (16)] to bring the soldering wave closer to or further from the first solder wave height sensor, the second solder wave height sensor, or both, based on the first sensor signal, the second sensor signal, or both [0137].
Regarding claim 11, Nakane teaches:
comprising one or more baffles configured to vary a shape of the soldering wave based on the first sensor signal or the second sensor signal [nozzle (13) has movable parts/baffle that change the shape/diameter of the nozzle and this can be controlled by processing unit (26A) in response to signals from the probes; 0015, 0016, 0137].
Regarding claim 12, Nakane teaches:
A control system [processing unit (22A); 0111-0129] for wave soldering comprising:
a first input pin [since the processing unit receives signals from each one of probes (33) and the figure shows the probes being connected to the processing unit there are input pins configured to receive the signals] configured to receive a first sensor signal indicative of a first height of a soldering wave from a first solder wave height sensor [one of detection probes (33); figure 13];
a second input pin [since the processing unit receives signals from each one of probes (33) and the figure shows the probes being connected to the processing unit there are input pins configured to receive the signals] configured to receive a second sensor signal indicative of a second height of a soldering wave from a second solder wave height sensor [one of detection probes (33); figure 13]; and
control circuitry [part or all of processing unit (22A)] configured to control the first height, the second height, or both of a soldering wave based on the first sensor signal and the second sensor signal [0111-0129].
Nakane does not teach:
wherein the first solder wave height sensor comprises a first eddy current sensor and the first eddy current sensor comprises a first thermal resistant layer configured to shield the first eddy current sensor from thermal energy dissipating from the soldering wave, (and)
wherein the first thermal resistant layer comprises a nano-particle coating;
wherein the second solder wave height sensor comprises a second eddy current sensor and the second eddy current sensor comprises a second thermal resistant layer configured to shield the second eddy current sensor from thermal energy dissipating from the soldering wave, (and)
wherein the second thermal resistant layer comprises the nano-particle coating.
Concerning the sensors being eddy current sensors:
Leap teaches using eddy current sensor (52) to sense a height of solder wave (24); 4:45-5:10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that any known height sensor, including the Leap eddy current sensor, could be used in place of probes (33) since they are functionally equivalent and to do so. One would have been motivated to use the eddy current sensor because it is non-contact, does not need to be moved, due to costs, familiarity, and/or availability, or because it is a known option.
Concerning the nano-particle coating:
Liu teaches eddy current sensor (17) is thermal protected by heat insulating end cover (18), wherein the end cover comprises silicon dioxide nanometer material; page 10.
Chika teaches hollow silica nanoparticles can applied as a coating; page 807.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to cover the end of the Leap eddy current sensor with silicon dioxide nanometer material in order to thermally protect the sensor as taught by Liu and that one can apply the cover as a coating as taught by Chika since it is known to do so, minus any unexpected results.
Regarding claim 13, Nakane teaches:
wherein the control circuitry is configured to control the first height and the second height of the soldering wave to be a substantially equal height, based on the first sensor signal and the second sensor signal [the top of solder wave (16) is flat/equal and thus, accounting for any variation between the min and max would be to control the wave to be substantially flat/equal; 0129].
Regarding claim 15, Nakane teaches:
comprising an alarm [buzzer; 0040] configured to perform one or more alarm actions, wherein the control circuitry is configured to operate the alarm based on a variation between the first sensor signal and the second sensor signal [0040].
Regarding claim 21, Nakane does not teach:
wherein the nano-particle coating comprises nanobead glass or nanobead ceramic.
However, this addressed by the incorporation of Chika in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 25, Nakane teaches:
wherein varying the shape of the soldering wave comprises varying the first height and the second height, wherein the first height is different than the second height [the top of solder wave (16) is flat/equal and thus, accounting for any variation of any number of sensed heights between the min and max would be to control different sensed heights; 0129].
Claims 8, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakane (JP 2019-141862 A) in view of Leap (US 6,415,972 B1), Liu et al. (CN 109360670 A), and Chika et al. “Hollow silica nanoparticles: A tiny pore with big dreams” as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Johnson et al. (US 4,890,781 A).
Regarding claims 8 and 14, Nakane teaches:
wherein the control circuitry is configured adjust the production track based [substrate transport mechanism (15)] on the variation exceeding a threshold variation of the first height and the second height [0041, 0042, 0137]; and
comprising production track [substrate transport mechanism (15)] configured to move a printed circuit board over the soldering wave [figure 13].
Nakane does not teach:
the control circuitry is configured to slow or stop the production track;
wherein the control circuitry is configured to suspend movement of the production track based on a variation between the first height and the second height.
Johnson teaches an automated flow/wave solder machine comprising control circuitry, computers (20-22), and a conveyor, rails (12a,b), wherein the control circuitry may shutdown the conveyor if something is out of tolerance; 2:21-26, 8:1-14, and figures 1-2, 6, and 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the shutdown concept of Johnson into Nakane in order to prevent damage and/or additional loss of time when the variance between the sensed heights is out of tolerance.
Regarding claim 9, Nakane does not teach:
a solder pot height sensor, configured to generate a third sensor signal; and
an actuator configured to provide a height adjustment to a solder pot to bring a solder wave closer to or further from the first solder wave height sensor, the second solder wave height sensor, or both, based on the first sensor signal, the second sensor signal, the third sensor signal, or a combination thereof.
Johnson teaches an automated flow/wave solder machine comprising control circuitry (20-22), probe (62), solder pot system (60), and jack (Y257), wherein the control circuitry controls the solder wave height relative to the printed circuit board via the probe and jack and controls the solder pump speed to help maintain solder wave height. Johnson prefers to adjust the height of pot to change the relative distance between the solder wave and PCB, vs adjusting the pump speed, because adjusting the speed pump may change the wave profile; 2:64-68, 6:48-7:25, and figures 2 and 6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Johnson into Nakane in order to avoid having to adjust the flow of the pump once the desired wave profile is achieved. Note this could be in place of adjusting the transport mechanism or in addition to as it would create more degrees of freedom.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakane (JP 2019-141862 A) in view of Leap (US 6,415,972 B1), Liu et al. (CN 109360670 A), and Chika et al. “Hollow silica nanoparticles: A tiny pore with big dreams” as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (TW 201026854 A).
Regarding claim 22, Nakane does not teach:
a first thermal regulator disposed about the first eddy current sensor and configured to provide cooling to the first eddy current sensor; and
a second thermal regulator disposed about the second eddy current sensor and configured to provide cooling to the second eddy current sensor.
Chen teaches eddy current detecting device (1) comprising cooler components (11, 12, 14) disposed about detecting unit (13) so as to the cool the detecting unit; page 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Chen cooling concept into the Leap sensor or to incorporate the Chen detector in place of the Leap sensor in order to have a sensor further protected from thermal radiation.
Regarding claim 23, Nakane does not teach:
a first support structure configured to suspend the first eddy current sensor above the soldering wave; and
a second support structure configured to suspend the second eddy current sensor above the soldering wave.
Leap teaches mounting sensor (52) into an aperture/support structure of rail (16); figures 1 and 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Leap rail and rail aperture concept into Nakane in order to suspend the plurality of sensors via an equal number of apertures.
Claim 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakane (JP 2019-141862 A) in view of Leap (US 6,415,972 B1), Liu et al. (CN 109360670 A), Chika et al. “Hollow silica nanoparticles: A tiny pore with big dreams”, and Hoenicka et al. (US 2012/0299585 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Nakane teaches:
A soldering system comprising:
a soldering wave [solder wave (16); figure 13];
a first sensor [one of detection probes (33); figure 13] configured to generate a first sensor signal indicative of a first height of the soldering wave [each probe sends a signal based on a height of the wave at each probe location; 0112-0113];
a second sensor [one of detection probes (33); figure 13] configured to generate a second sensor signal indicative of a second height of the soldering wave [each probe sends a signal based on a height of the wave at each probe location; 0112-0113]; and
control circuitry [processing unit (22A)] configured to adjust the first height, the second height, or both based on a variation between the first height and the second height [0111-0129].
Nakane does not teach:
the sensors are eddy current sensors;
wherein the first/second eddy current sensor comprises:
a first/second thermal resistant layer comprising a nano-particle coating; and
a first/second thermal resistant cap disposed between the first/second eddy current sensor and the first/second thermal resistant layer,
wherein the first/second thermal resistant cap comprises a heat resistant metal.
Concerning the sensors being an eddy current sensors:
Leap teaches using eddy current sensor (52) to sense a height of solder wave (24); 4:45-5:10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that any known height sensor, including the Leap eddy current sensor, could be used in place of probes (33) since they are functionally equivalent and to do so. One would have been motivated to use the eddy current sensor because it is non-contact, does not need to be moved, due to costs, familiarity, and/or availability, or because it is a known option.
Concerning the cap being metal:
Note that all metals are thermal resistant to some degree.
Leap teaches the eddy current sensor is manufactured by Micro-Epsilon; 4:45-61.
Hoenicka, whose assignee is Micro-Epsilon, teaches an eddy current sensor wherein the housing of the sensor may be of stainless steel due to difficult environmental conditions and cover (20) may be formed of metal; 0010, 0058, and figure 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate this sensor into Leap since it is a Micro-Epsilon eddy current sensor.
Concerning the nano-particle coating:
Liu teaches eddy current sensor (17) is thermal protected by heat insulating end cover (18), wherein the end cover comprises silicon dioxide nanometer material; page 10.
Chika teaches hollow silica nanoparticles can applied as a coating; page 807.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to cover the end of the Hoenicka eddy current sensor with silicon dioxide nanometer material in order to thermally protect the sensor as taught by Liu and that one can apply the cover as a coating as taught by Chika since it is known to do so, minus any unexpected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure; see PTO 892.
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 CARLOS J GAMINO whose telephone number is (571)270-5826. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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 at 5712723458. 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.
/CARLOS J GAMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights