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 Objections
Claims 23, 25, and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claims 23, 25, and 26, where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i), and in claim 25, “the plurality of stages comprise” should be –the plurality of stages comprises--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 5 and 15 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 5 and 15 recite “without stopping production with the selective soldering machine”, support for this negative limitation cannot be found in the originally filed disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 8, 9, 11, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Colijn et al. (US 2024/0359245 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Colijn discloses:
A selective soldering machine [figures 1 and 4] comprising:
a selective soldering nozzle [nozzle (11)] configured to provide a solder wave to solder a target portion of a workpiece during a production mode [0081];
at least one image sensor [camera (30); 0085] 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 [0039]; and
a controller [unshown controller; 0093] that is configured 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 at least one property detected by the at least one image sensor [Note that this real-time does not have to occur in the “real-time during production” and thus performing the calibration described in 0092-0093 would be in real-time during the calibration step].
Regarding claim 2, Colijn 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 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 [0090 and 0093].
Regarding claim 3, Colijn discloses:
wherein the at least one image sensor is configured to detect the at least one property of the solder wave in real-time [0090].
Regarding claim 4, Colijn discloses:
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 image data detected by the at least one image sensor to determine whether to adjust the solder wave [each of the recorded images recorded “over a time period” are used to determine; i.e. analyzed by the controller, the stability of the wave; 0091, 0093].
Regarding claim 8, Colijn discloses:
wherein the selective soldering nozzle is a first selective soldering nozzle [nozzle (11)]; 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 [multi wave solder pot (100); 0106].
Regarding claim 9, Colijn discloses:
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 [multiple cameras (302) monitor each nozzle; 0114].
Regarding claim 11, Colijn discloses:
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 [0118-0119].
Regarding claim 22, Colijn discloses:
wherein the at least one image sensor is fixed relative to the selective soldering nozzle [camera (302) is fixed; figure 4].
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colijn et al. (US 2024/0359245 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Sendelbach (US 2022/0355423 A1).
Regarding claims 10, Colijn does not teach:
further comprising a second solder pot that is configured to provide solder to the second selective soldering nozzle.
Colijn teaches there may be more than one nozzle; 0085, 0106, 0114.
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 that the Sendelbach moving unit could be incorporated into Colijn in order to increase production, apply different solders, and/or be adapted to solder different components.
Claims 5, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colijn et al. (US 2024/0359245 A1), as applied to claim 1 (where applicable), in view of Chang et al. (TW 202016512 A).
Regarding claim 12, Colijn teaches:
A method of applying solder to a workpiece [soldering PCBs; 0002], the method comprising:
providing a solder wave with a selective soldering nozzle [nozzle (11)], during a production mode of the selective soldering nozzle, to a target portion of the workpiece [0003];
detecting, with at least one image sensor and during the production mode of the selective soldering nozzle, at least one property of the selective soldering nozzle and/or the solder wave in real-time [0039]; and
adjusting, with a controller the solder wave provided by the selective soldering nozzle based on image data, provided by the at least one image sensor, that represents at least one property detected by the at least one image sensor [0050-0052].
Colijn does not explicitly teach:
the adjusting is done in real-time during production wherein the image data represents the at least one property detected by the at least one image sensor [i.e. the image data is detected during production in real time].
While Colijn does teach the images can be “obtained during soldering of the board”; 0039, Colijn does not explicitly teach that those images can be used to determine or adjust in real-time during production; i.e. Coljin teaches obtaining, determining, and adjusting during a calibration process.
Chang teaches “the invention performs real-time image processing on the tin wave height captured by the camera, so that the user can see the tin wave height change status of the current wave welding site on the monitor, so that the factory can quickly grasp the correct information in management and maintenance To further improve the soldering quality of printed circuit boards”; page 10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the images obtained by Colijn “during soldering of the board” to determine the wave height change needed as taught by Chang, as this would be obtaining and determining of data in real-time during production. Furthermore, instead of simply displaying and waiting for the user to react it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to program the Colijn controller to automatically make the height change needed since it is capable of doing so, as demonstrated in the calibration process, and thus, automating the process and eliminating any delay caused by the user reaction time.
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 12 applies here with regards to limitation 1) of this claim.
Regarding claim 13, Colijn teaches:
wherein the controller adjusts 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 selective soldering nozzle in a riser, a size of the solder wave, height of the solder wave, a shape of the solder wave, a nozzle body flow, and/or oxidation level of the solder wave [0090 and 0093].
Regarding claim 15, Colijn teaches:
wherein the at least one image sensor detects at least one property of the solder wave in real-time [0039], and wherein the at least one image sensor provides the image data to the controller in real-time during the production mode [0039].
Should the applicant argue that the images obtained by Colijn “during soldering of the board” are not provided to the controller in real-time during the production mode the following applies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to do so as taught by Chang above in order to eliminate any delay and/or to ensure quality.
Regarding claim 16, Colijn teaches:
wherein the controller (1) adjusts the solder wave, without stopping production with a selective soldering machine that comprises the selective soldering nozzle, in response to determining, during the production mode, that the solder wave should be adjusted based on the image data [this is addressed in the rejection of claim 12], or
2) stops 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 claim 19, Colijn teaches:
wherein the selective soldering nozzle is a first selective soldering nozzle [nozzle (11)], and
wherein the method further comprises:
providing a solder wave to solder another portion of the workpiece with a second selective soldering nozzle [multi wave solder pot (100); 0106, 0114]; and
detecting at least one property of the solder wave, provided by the second selective soldering nozzle during of the second selective soldering nozzle with at least one other image sensor [0114].
Colijn does not explicitly teach:
detecting during a production mode in real-time with 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 that for any number of additional nozzles to obtain, determine, and adjust as noted in the rejection of claim 12 for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 24, Colijn 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, applying the incorporation of Chang as noted in the rejection of claim 12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to obtain, determine, and adjust as often as desired, including every second, in order to ensure quality, stay within the controller’s capability, and/or conserve energy, minus any unexpected results.
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colijn et al. (US 2024/0359245 A1) or Colijn et al. (US 2024/0359245 A1) in view of Chang et al. (TW 202016512 A) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Sendelbach (US 2022/0355423 A1) and Deng (CN 114951878 A).
Regarding claims 21 and 23, Colijn does not teach:
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.
further comprising a movable selective solder body, wherein the at least one image sensor and the selective soldering nozzle are mounted to the movable selective solder body, whereby the selective soldering nozzle does not travel to the at least one image sensor for detection by the at least one image sensor, and whereby the selective soldering nozzle does not need to travel to a certain position for detection.
Sendelbach teaches a solder pot moving unit (17) that comprises two solder assemblies (18, 20), wherein each assembly comprises solder pot (44), solder nozzle (46), spray fluxer and camera; 0008 and figures 1-3.
Deng teaches a moving soldering device (4) wherein on the working end of the device comprises fixed cameras (501, 502); figures 1 and 3.
Colijn teaches there may be more than one nozzle and each nozzle may have its own camera(s); 0085, 0106, 0114.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the Sendelbach moving unit could be incorporated into Colijn in order to increase production, apply different solders, and/or be adapted to solder different components. In doing so, each pot would have its own camera and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Deng fixed camera concept and fix a camera to each moving pot so as to view the nozzle. One would have been motivated to do so since the entire pot moves, the camera would not have to adjust focus or brightness to view the nozzle as the pot is moved about, and/or this ensures the nozzle can be viewed during production no matter when and where the pot moves. In doing so, neither the nozzle or camera would move relative to each other.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colijn et al. (US 2024/0359245 A1) as applied to claim 4, and further in view of Computerphile “Finding the Edges (Sobel Operator)” and Sato et al. (JP 62-267065 A).
Regarding claim 26, Colijn teaches:
wherein the image data comprises a plurality of frames of images of the selective soldering nozzle and/or the solder wave [0090-0091].
Colijn 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 Colijn needs this parameter for calibrations.
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 Colijn in order to adjust the height of the solder wave as desired.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 25 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 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