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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/18/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-13, 15, 16, 19, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 12, 16, 19, 24, and 25 recite “during production mode”. Note that the specification does not recite “during production mode” nor when any claimed step of the process is to occur. Note that the process could be during a testing mode or calibration mode.
Claims 1, 3, 12, 15, and 25 recite “controller that is configured... to adjust, in real time, the solder wave” or variation thereof. While support for collecting data in real-time can be found, PA Pub 0027, support for adjusting in real-time cannot be found.
Claims 2 and 13 recite “a position of the plurality of positions of the selective soldering nozzle”. While support for “a position of the selective soldering nozzle in a riser” can be found, original claims 2 and 13, support for the forementioned cannot be found.
Claims 3 and 15 recite “wherein the controller is configured to adjust, in real-time, the solder wave provided by the selective soldering nozzle based on the image data that represents the at least one property detected by the at least one image sensor and based on additional image data that represents the at least one property of the solder wave at multiple points in time while the solder wave is adjusted”, or a variation thereof. While there is support for continuously monitoring the solder wave; PA Pub 0032, support for doing so while the solder wave is being adjusted cannot be found.
Claims 5 and 16 recite “stop production”. While support to stop the machine can be found, PA Pub 0027, support to stop production cannot be found.
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 1-5, 8-13, 15, 16, 19, and 21-26 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 “the selective soldering nozzle is configured to move to a plurality of positions”. It is unclear if the nozzle actually moves or it is moved due to being attached to other moving elements. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as either.
Claims 3 and 15 recite “wherein the controller is configured to adjust, in real-time, the solder wave provided by the selective soldering nozzle based on the image data [first data image] that represents the at least one property detected by the at least one image sensor and based on additional image data that represents the at least one property of the solder wave at multiple points in time while the solder wave is adjusted”, or a variation thereof. It is unclear if the controller adjusts based on the first data image combined with the additional data image or on the first data image and then each subsequent additional image individually. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as the latter.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 12, 13, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by Liu (CN 20200070337 U).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses:
A selective soldering machine [selective wave soldering machine; figure 1] comprising:
a selective soldering nozzle [nozzle (17)] configured to provide a solder wave to solder a target portion of a workpiece during a production mode, wherein during the production mode the selective soldering nozzle is configured to move to a plurality of positions [the machine is driven from spot to spot to produce a soldered PCB/PCBA; page 2];
at least one image sensor [CCD camera (16)] configured to detect at least one property of the selective soldering nozzle and/or the solder wave [specifically for imaging the tin spraying height but also inherently detects any other property that can be gleaned from the image(s); page 5] in real-time [note that all images are inherently in real time since a camera cannot see into the past or future] during the production mode of the selective soldering nozzle, wherein the image sensor is configured to provide image data that represents the at least one property while the selective soldering nozzle moves to the plurality of positions during the production mode [the camera is capable of and performs this function since it is an image sensor and moves with the nozzle as the camera is part of container (9); page 5]; and
a controller [controller (10)] that is configured to receive, in real-time while the selective soldering nozzle moves to the plurality of positions, the image data representing the at least one property during the production mode [the controller receives data in real-time, see below, while the machine is driven from spot to spot], and adjust, in real-time [Note that Liu teaches no delay between monitoring the tin-spraying state and using the data to control the tin spraying height and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art giving this the broadest reasonable interpretation would conclude that Liu is a real time closed-loop production system. Also note that real-time processing is extremely well-known in the art since it is a defined term], the solder wave provided by the selective soldering nozzle based on the image data that represents the at least one property detected by the at least one image sensor [the controller adjusts the tin spraying height based on the monitoring of the tin-spraying state].
Regarding claim 2, Liu discloses:
wherein the controller is configured to adjust the solder wave based on at least one of a size of the selective soldering nozzle, a height of the selective soldering nozzle, a position of the plurality of positions of the selective soldering nozzle, a size of the solder wave, a height of the solder wave [tin spraying height], a shape of the solder wave, a nozzle body flow, and/or oxidation level of the solder wave.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, the limitations of these claims are addressed in the rejections of claims 1 and 2 above.
Regarding claim 21, Liu discloses:
wherein the selective soldering nozzle does not travel to the at least one image sensor for detection by the at least one image sensor, whereby the selective soldering nozzle does not need to travel to a certain position for detection.
Liu discloses camera (16) is part of container (9) and monitors the tin-spraying state, i.e. the spot to spot soldering process, and the container is moved about by lifting platform (8) and x and y linear motion devices (12, 13); page 5. Thus, Liu neither teaches nor suggests that the nozzle travels to the camera or a certain position for detection since the camera is part of the container.
Regarding claim 22, Liu discloses:
wherein the at least one image sensor is fixed relative to the selective soldering nozzle.
Note that Liu neither teaches nor suggests that the nozzle travels independently of camera. Instead, Liu discloses camera (16) is part of container (9) and monitors the tin-spraying state, i.e. the spot to spot soldering process; page 5. Thus, the camera is fixed to the container like the nozzle which means the camera is fixed relative to the nozzle.
Regarding claim 23, Liu discloses:
a movable selective solder body [container (9)],
wherein the at least one image sensor and the selective soldering nozzle are mounted to the movable selective solder body [camera (16) and nozzle 17 are part of container (9)],
whereby the selective soldering nozzle does not travel to the at least one image sensor for detection by the at least one image sensor [Note that Liu neither teaches nor suggests that the nozzle travels to the camera], and
whereby the selective soldering nozzle does not need to travel to a certain position for detection [since camera (16) and nozzle 17 are part of container (9) the nozzle does not/cannot travel to the camera].
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 20200070337 U) in view of banalec.com “Benefits of electrical control systems”.
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches (note this rejection and others below apply should the applicant prove that one of ordinary skill in the art would not conclude that Liu is a real time closed-loop production system):
A selective soldering machine [selective wave soldering machine; figure 1] comprising:
a selective soldering nozzle [nozzle (17)] configured to provide a solder wave to solder a target portion of a workpiece during a production mode, wherein during the production mode the selective soldering nozzle is configured to move to a plurality of positions [the machine is driven from spot to spot to produce a soldered PCB/PCBA; page 2];
at least one image sensor [CCD camera (16)] configured to detect at least one property of the selective soldering nozzle and/or the solder wave [specifically for imaging the tin spraying height but also inherently detects any other property that can be gleaned from the image(s); page 5] in real-time [note that all images are inherently in real time since a camera cannot see into the paste or future], wherein the image sensor is configured to provide image data that represents the at least one property while the selective soldering nozzle moves to the plurality of positions during the production mode [the camera is capable of and performs this function since it is an image sensor that is part of the container (9); i.e. attached to the container]; and
a controller [controller (10)] that is configured to receive, in real-time while the selective soldering nozzle moves to the plurality of positions, the image data representing the at least one property during the production mode [the controller is capable of receiving data in real-time since it is connected to the camera].
Liu does not teach:
imaging in real-time during the production mode of the selective soldering nozzle;
adjusting, in real-time, the solder wave provided by the selective soldering nozzle based on the image data that represents the at least one property detected by the at least one image sensor.
Banelec teaches (emphasis added), “Control loops consist of hardware, including PLCs and actuators, which interpret the signals from sensors, control valves, breakers, switches, motors, and other similar devices, then transmit them back to a programme logic controller (PLC). The PLC processes the data, in real-time, against the ‘setpoint’ – the ideal condition of each process variable – before applying the appropriate ‘corrective’ action to return the process value to its ideal setpoint.”
Some of the benefits of electrical control systems, i.e. real-time closed-loop systems, include:
“Consistent quality:
Because automated systems process a vast amount of real-time data, potential issues can be anticipated and addressed before they become major problems. Electrical controls predict and correct variables to keep equipment and processes running smoothly and identify any performance issues caused by faulty or deteriorating components. This helps keep downtime to a minimum, as maintenance can be predicted and factored in at off-peak times. Also, vast amounts of data can be archived for future analysis in performance investigations or by process improvement engineers.
Lower costs
Because automated systems process a vast amount of real-time data, potential issues can be anticipated and addressed before they become major problems. Electrical controls predict and correct variables to keep equipment and processes running smoothly and identify any performance issues caused by faulty or deteriorating components. This helps keep downtime to a minimum, as maintenance can be predicted and factored in at off-peak times. Also, vast amounts of data can be archived for future analysis in performance investigations or by process improvement engineers.”
Thus, it would have been routine to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the Liu controller and camera to implement the Banelec control loop concept in order to control the solder wave in real-time, which in turn saves energy, reduces safety risk, controls quality, lowers costs, etc.
Regarding claim 2, Liu does not teach:
wherein the controller is configured to adjust the solder wave based on at least one of a size of the selective soldering nozzle, a height of the selective soldering nozzle, a position of the plurality of positions of the selective soldering nozzle, a size of the solder wave, a height of the solder wave, a shape of the solder wave, a nozzle body flow, and/or oxidation level of the solder wave.
However, since Liu teaches the controller controls the tin spraying height, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to base the adjusting on the image received from the camera in order to gain benefits taught by Banelec.
Regarding claim 3, Liu and/or Liu/ Banelec teach:
wherein the at least one image sensor is configured to detect the at least one property of the solder wave in real-time [see rejections of claim 1 above], and
wherein the controller is configured to adjust, in real-time, the solder wave provided by the selective soldering nozzle based on the image data that represents the at least one property detected by the at least one image sensor [see rejections of claim 1 above].
Liu nor Banelec specifically teach:
adjusting based on additional image data that represents the at least one property of the solder wave at multiple points in time while the solder wave is adjusted.
However, since the point of the real time closed-loop production system is to keep operating parameters within desired set points, it is intrinsic to the process to continuously image and analyze the images till a triggering image triggers a need to adjust an operating parameter, which in this case is at least the tin spraying height, and then initiate the adjusting process. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to continue to further image and analyze as the adjusting is happening in order to ensure that the adjusting process is within a set point or to determine when the adjustment is complete. For example, the triggering image of the nozzle is analyzed, an adjustment is performed, and then the nozzle is imaged and analyzed again to determine if the adjustment was enough/correct, if not the process is repeated till it is.
Regarding claim 5, option 1 is addressed in the rejection of claim 3 above.
wherein the controller is configured to
1) initiate an adjustment process, during which the solder wave is adjusted based at least in part on additional image data that represents the at least one property of the solder wave at multiple points in time while the solder wave is adjusted, in response to determining that the solder wave should be adjusted based on the image data, or
2) stop production with the selective soldering machine based on the image data, to inform an operator, in response to determining that the solder wave has an issue.
Regarding claims 12, 13, 15, and 16, the limitations of these claims are addressed in the rejections of claims 1-3 above.
Regarding claim 21, Liu teaches:
wherein the selective soldering nozzle does not travel to the at least one image sensor for detection by the at least one image sensor, whereby the selective soldering nozzle does not need to travel to a certain position for detection.
Liu teaches camera (16) is part of container (9) and monitors the tin-spraying state, i.e. the spot to spot soldering process, and the container is moved about by lifting platform (8) and x and y linear motion devices (12, 13); page 5. Thus, Liu neither teaches nor suggests that the nozzle travels to the camera or a certain position for detection since the camera is part of the container.
Regarding claim 22, Liu teaches:
wherein the at least one image sensor is fixed relative to the selective soldering nozzle.
Note that Liu neither teaches nor suggests that the nozzle travels independently of camera. Instead, Liu teaches camera (16) is part of container (9) and monitors the tin-spraying state, i.e. the spot to spot soldering process; page 5. Thus, the camera is fixed to the container like the nozzle which means the camera is fixed relative to the nozzle.
Regarding claim 23, Liu teaches:
a movable selective solder body [container (9)],
wherein the at least one image sensor and the selective soldering nozzle are mounted to the movable selective solder body [camera (16) and nozzle 17 are part of container (9)],
whereby the selective soldering nozzle does not travel to the at least one image sensor for detection by the at least one image sensor [note that Liu neither teaches nor suggests that the nozzle travels to the camera], and
whereby the selective soldering nozzle does not need to travel to a certain position for detection [since camera (16) and nozzle 17 are part of container (9) the nozzle does not/cannot travel to the camera].
Regarding claim 24, Liu does not teach:
wherein detecting the at least one property in real-time, during the production mode of the selective soldering nozzle, includes detecting the at least one property at least every 1 second.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to detect, receive, and analyze as often as desired/possible, including every second, in order to ensure quality, stay within the controller’s capability, and/or conserve energy, minus any unexpected results.
Claims 4, 8, 9, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 20200070337 U) or Liu (CN 20200070337 U) in view of banalec.com “Benefits of electrical control systems” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Colijn et al. (US 2024/0359245 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Liu does not teach:
wherein the at least one image sensor is configured to provide the image data, which comprises a plurality of frames of images of the selective soldering nozzle and/or the solder wave, and the controller is configured to analyze each frame of the image data detected by the at least one image sensor to determine whether to adjust the solder wave.
Colijn teaches a selective soldering apparatus comprising a solder pot (10), nozzle (11), camera (30), and a controller, wherein each of the recorded images recorded by the camera “over a time period” are used to determine; i.e. analyzed by the controller, the stability of the wave and the controller uses these images to adjust the machine settings accordingly; 0091-0093.
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 Colijn in order to control the stability of the wave.
Regarding claim 8, Liu does not teach:
wherein the selective soldering nozzle is a first selective soldering nozzle; and
wherein selective soldering machine further comprises: a second selective soldering nozzle configured to provide a solder wave to solder another portion of the workpiece.
Colijn teaches a selective wave soldering apparatus can have a number of nozzles in order to solder a number of locations on a board; 0106.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add a second nozzle, as taught by Colijn, in order to solder another location of the PCB/PCBA or to solder different types/sizes of components to the PCB/PCBA.
Regarding claim 9, Liu does not teach:
wherein at least one other image sensor is configured to detect at least one property of the solder wave, provided by the second selective soldering nozzle, in real-time.
Colijn teaches multiple cameras (302) can monitor each nozzle; 0114.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add a second Liu camera for the second nozzle, as taught by Colijn, in order to monitor the tin spraying height of the second nozzle independently of the first nozzle in real-time.
Regarding claim 11, Liu does not teach:
wherein the controller is configured to adjust the solder wave provided by the second selective soldering nozzle based on the at least one property detected by the at least one other image sensor.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the same controller to apply the real-time closed-loop system/process as taught by Liu or Liu/Banelec with the second nozzle and camera in order to control the tin spraying height of the second nozzle in real-time.
Regarding claim 19, this claim is addressed by the rejections of claims 8, 9, and 11:
wherein the selective soldering nozzle is a first selective soldering nozzle, and wherein the method further comprises:
providing a solder wave to solder another portion of the workpiece with a second selective soldering nozzle; and
detecting at least one property of the solder wave, provided by the second selective soldering nozzle during a production mode of the second selective soldering nozzle, in real-time with at least one other image sensor.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 20200070337 U) or Liu (CN 20200070337 U) in view of banalec.com “Benefits of electrical control systems” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sendelbach (US 2022/0355423 A1).
Regarding claims 8-11, Liu does not teach:
wherein the selective soldering nozzle is a first selective soldering nozzle; and
wherein selective soldering machine further comprises:
a second selective soldering nozzle configured to provide a solder wave to solder another portion of the workpiece;
wherein at least one other image sensor is configured to detect at least one property of the solder wave, provided by the second selective soldering nozzle, in real-time;
further comprising a second solder pot that is configured to provide solder to the second selective soldering nozzle; and
wherein the controller is configured to adjust the solder wave provided by the second selective soldering nozzle based on the at least one property detected by the at least one other image sensor.
Sendelbach teaches solder pot moving unit (17) that comprises two solder assemblies (18, 20), wherein each assembly comprises solder pot (44), solder nozzle (46), a spray fluxer, and a camera; 0008 and figures 1-3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a second selective wave soldering machine into Liu as taught by Sendelbach in order to increase production by soldering different locations simultaneously on the PCB/PCBA, apply different solders to the PCB/PCBA, and/or to solder different types/sizes of components to the PCB/PCBA.
In doing so, it also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention use the same controller to apply the real-time closed-loop system/process as taught by Liu or Liu/Banelec with the second nozzle and camera in order to control the tin spraying height of the second nozzle in real-time.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 20200070337 U) in view of Sato et al. (JP 62-267065 A) or Liu (CN 20200070337 U) in view of banelec.com “Benefits of electrical control systems” and Sato et al. (JP 62-267065 A).
Regarding claim 25, Liu and Liu/Banelec teach the following as noted in the rejection of claim 1:
A selective soldering machine comprising:
a selective soldering nozzle configured to provide a solder wave to solder a target portion of a workpiece during a production mode;
at least one image sensor configured to detect at least one property of the selective soldering nozzle and/or the solder wave in real-time during the production mode of the selective soldering nozzle, wherein the image sensor is configured to provide image data that represents the at least one property; and
a controller that is configured to receive, in real-time, the image data, and adjust, in real- time, the solder wave provided by the selective soldering nozzle based on the image data that represents the at least one property detected by the at least one image sensor,
Neither Liu nor Liu/Banelec teach:
wherein, in response to determining that the solder wave should be adjusted, the controller is configured to adjust a pump speed of a pump that is configured to generate the solder wave in a plurality of stages, and wherein the plurality of stages comprise;
1) a fast control period, wherein the controller is configured to adjust the pump speed at a first rate,
2) a slow control period, after the fast control period, wherein the controller is configured to adjust the pump speed at a second rate that is slower than the first rate, an
3) a stabilization control period, after the slow control period, such that a wave height of the solder wave remains at a wave height set point.
Concerning the pump adjustment:
Sato teaches using a controller to measure the height of a solder wave and to adjust the height by altering the pump speed; abstract.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Sato wave height control process into Liu in order to maintain the wave height at the set point.
Concerning the three stages:
In everyday life we regularly encounter going from a higher rate to a slower rate in order to arrive at a desired stable parameter; such as quickly accelerating on the on-ramp to get up to speed and then slowly decelerating when you are close; lightly braking when you have gone too far so that you carefully arrive at the speed limit or quickly turning the spigot to turn on the sprinkler and then slowly turning the spigot to adjust the sprinkler to the right height; or quickly turning the facet to hot and then slowly turning to get to the desired temperature.
Thus, it would have been obvious to quickly accelerate up to a first pump speed to quickly get close to the set point height and then slowly decelerate to a second pump speed in order to carefully arrive at the set point.
Claim 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 20200070337 U) in view of Colijn et al. (US 2024/0359245 A1) or Liu (CN 20200070337 U) in view of banalec.com “Benefits of electrical control systems” and Colijn et al. (US 2024/0359245 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and Computerphile “Finding the Edges (Sobel Operator)” and Sato et al. (JP 62-267065 A).
Regarding claim 26, Liu teaches:
wherein the image data comprises a plurality of frames of images of the selective soldering nozzle and/or the solder wave [note that the camera intrinsically captures more than one image since the camera is monitoring the tin-spraying state].
Should the applicant prove this is not the case, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to continuously image the tin-spaying state in order to implement the Banelec control loop concept continuously.
Liu does not teach:
wherein the controller is configured to perform a Sobel matrix transformation for each frame of the image data, wherein the controller is configured to determine XY derivatives based on each Sobel matrix transformation,
wherein the controller is configured to provide magnitudes of polar coordinates based on the XY derivatives,
wherein the controller is configured to find highest edge pixels based on the magnitudes of the polar coordinates to determine a wave height of the solder wave, and
wherein the controller is configured to adjust a pump speed, of a pump that is configured to generate the solder wave, based on the wave height determined by the controller and a predetermined wave height setpoint for the solder wave.
Concerning the use of Sobel matrix transformation:
Computerphile teaches how computers can use the Sobel matrix transformation which determines XY derivatives to provide coordinates in order to find the edge of objects in an image; watch video.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to program the controller to use the Sobel transformation matrix to find the edge of any object in an image, including that of a solder wave, since that is the purpose of the Sobel matrix transformation. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to program the computer to determine the height of the solder wave since Liu/prior art apparatus needs this parameter for the control loop.
Concerning the pump speed height control:
Sato teaches using a controller to measure the height of a solder wave and to adjust the height by altering the pump speed; abstract.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Sato wave height control process into Liu in order to maintain the wave height at the set point.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 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.
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