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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-13, 21 in the reply filed on 11/21/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a workpiece would be simultaneously within the flux application area and the heating area while being conveyed and moreover, new claim 21 expressly recites a front end of a first workpiece being heated while applying the flux to a rear end of the first workpiece. This is not found persuasive because features based on the workpieces do not limit the soldering apparatus claims. The soldering machine recited in claim 1 can be utilized in a materially different method, wherein a first workpiece is heated in the heating area while flux is applied to a separate second workpiece. Applicant also argues that search and examination of all groups would not impose a serious burden. This is not found persuasive because the method invention steps require a different field of search (e.g. searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries) and prior art applicable to apparatus may not be applicable to the method. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that elected claims 1-13 and 21 are drawn to an apparatus. "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (MPEP 2114). Furthermore, examiner notes that, “inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” (MPEP 2115). For example, “a front end of a first workpiece is heated in the heating area while applying the flux to a rear end of the first workpiece in the flux application area” (claim 21) relate to lengthy workpiece materials which do not structurally limit the claimed soldering apparatus.
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) 1-4, 6-9, 11-13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colijn (US 2017/0209949) in view of Hess (DE 19541340 A1, see attached document) & Martenson et al. (WO 2014/140192, hereafter “Martenson”, see attached document).
PNG
media_image1.png
666
852
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Colijn discloses a selective soldering machine 1 (see fig. 1) for selectively soldering workpieces, comprising: a flux application area (flux module 9 as part of preparation module 2- fig. 3, [0038]) configured to apply flux to bottoms of the workpieces 14 (circuit boards); a heating area (heater 10 as part of module 2) configured to heat the bottoms of the workpieces 14 [0038]; a selective soldering area 3 & 4 configured to selectively solder the bottoms of the workpieces [0039]; a conveyor 8 (linear conveyor) configured to convey the workpieces [0039], the conveyor extends through the flux application area, the heating area and the selective soldering area (fig. 1); and a controller 11 (fig. 3) that is configured to control the conveyor 8 to continuously convey the workpieces through the flux application area, the heating area, and the selective soldering area and to control application of flux, heat, and solder at each respective area [0038], wherein the flux application area abuts against the heating area and the heating area abuts against the selective soldering area (see fig. 1 diagram). Examiner notes that “area” is not limited by specific dimensions or size and is open to any portion(s) encompassing the operation (i.e. fluxing, heating).
Colijn is silent with respect to applying flux, heat or solder to the workpieces without stopping the workpieces. However, continuous moving workpieces during soldering is known in the art. Hess teaches continuously moving circuit boards on a conveyor past heating station followed by soldering station for selective soldering (see abstract and title). Similarly, Martenson is directed to method and devices for jetting viscous medium, including solder paste (abstract, [0002]). Analogous to Colijn, Martenson discloses a conveyor 18 feeding the workpieces through the jetting machine 1 including a moving depositing head/nozzle (fig. 1, 8; [0005]). Martenson teaches moving the depositing head/nozzle in at least conveying direction of the workpiece and applying viscous medium (solder) to the workpiece simultaneously while the workpiece is moving ([0011, 0023, 0028]; figs. 8-9). Given teachings of Hess & Martenson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply flux, heat and solder at each respective area while continuously moving the circuit boards without stopping in the soldering machine of Colijn with the motivation to increase production throughput. Hence, Colijn as modified by Hess & Martenson renders the claimed soldering apparatus obvious.
As to claim 2, Colijn discloses that the conveyor 8 is configured to convey the workpieces in a machine direction (fig. 1).
As to claim 3, Colijn discloses the selective soldering area comprises a first selective soldering nozzle (in module 3) and a first solder bath/pot in fluid communication with the first selective soldering nozzle 37 (fig. 7; [0003, 0036]).
As to claim 4, Colijn discloses the selective soldering area comprises a second selective soldering nozzle (in module 4) and a second solder bath/pot in fluid communication with the second selective soldering nozzle 37 [0036]. See disclosure of Martenson concerning moving the soldering nozzle along a machine direction & a direction orthogonal to the machine direction, and to apply solder to the circuit board while the circuit board moves along the machine direction on the conveyor. Martenson discloses a conveyor 18 feeding the workpieces through the jetting machine 1 including a moving depositing head/nozzle (fig. 1, 8; [0005]). Martenson teaches moving the depositing head/nozzle in three dimensions (includes conveying direction) of the workpiece and applying viscous medium (solder) to the workpiece simultaneously while the workpiece is moving ([0011, 0023, 0028]; figs. 8-9). Given teachings of Martenson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the first and second nozzles in Colijn to move along the conveying direction & direction orthogonal to the conveying direction and to apply solder to board workpiece while the workpiece is moving in order to cover all desired locations and solder all components on the circuit board.
As to claim 6, Colijn discloses that the controller 11 is also connected to control the soldering modules 3-4, which contains the respective first and second solder bath/pot [0038]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the controller to control movement of the first & the second solder pots in the combination of Colijn, Hess and Martenson in order to place the nozzle at selective soldering positions on the circuit board.
As to claim 7, Colijn discloses that the flux application area (in module 2) comprises a fluxing nozzle 9 and the heating area (also in module 2) comprises a heater 10 (fig. 3).
As to claims 8-9, Colijn discloses that conveyor is a single conveyor 8 for conveying the circuit boards 14 (fig. 1, [0038]).
As to claim 11, Colijn does not disclose providing any stop pins to stop the workpieces between a beginning and an end of the conveyor.
As to claim 12, rejection of claim 4 above is incorporated herein. Colijn as modified by teachings of Martenson discloses that the selective soldering area comprises a first selective soldering nozzle that is configured to apply solder to a first workpiece while the first workpiece is moving synchronously with the first selective soldering nozzle along a machine direction.
As to claim 13, Martenson teaches moving the depositing nozzle in three dimensions, while the workpiece is moving (figs. 8-9). This same technique is applicable to the fluxing nozzle so that flux can be precisely applied to desired locations on the circuit board components. Given teachings of Martenson, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique (nozzle movement flexibility) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales). Thus, Colijn as modified in light of Martenson discloses that the flux application area comprises a fluxing nozzle that is configured to apply flux to the first workpiece while the fluxing nozzle and the first workpiece are moving in a machine direction.
As to claim 21, examiner notes that features of “a front end of a first workpiece is heated in the heating area while applying the flux to a rear end of the first workpiece in the flux application area” are based on a long workpiece size, which extends in both the flux application area and heating area. The selective soldering machine in Colijn (fig. 1) is well configured to process a lengthy workpiece which meets the recited conditions.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colijn in view of Hess & Martenson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hosoya et al. (JP 06-061638 A, 1994, see attached document) & Szymanowski et al. (US 2008/0302861).
As to claim 5, Colijn or Hess fails to show the first solder pot and the second solder pot arranged staggered relative to each other. However, Hosoya (also drawn to selective soldering apparatus for circuit boards- abstract) teaches conveying circuit boards through heating area 18 & soldering area 19 along a machine direction, wherein a first solder pot 20 with its nozzle 21 and a second solder pot 22 with its nozzle 23 are arranged staggered relative to each other along at least one of the machine direction and the direction orthogonal to the machine direction (see fig. 1, [0012]). Similarly, Szymanowski teaches it has been known that generally in a wave soldering machine, a substrate (board) is moved by conveyor on an inclined path past fluxing station, heating station and soldering station (Background- [0004]), wherein inclined path includes staggered soldering nozzles (fig. 3). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to place first and second solder pots in a staggered manner along the conveying direction in the soldering machine of Colijn since such arrangement is within conventional knowledge for mass soldering, as evidenced by Hosoya & Szymanowski.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/24/25, 7/14/25 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVANG R PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3636. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of Applicant. If Applicant wishes to communicate via email, a written authorization form must be filed by Applicant: Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The form may be filed via the Patent Center and can be found using the document description Internet Communications, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms. In limited circumstances, the Applicant may make an oral authorization for Internet communication. See MPEP § 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. For more information, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For questions, technical issues or troubleshooting, please contact the Patent Electronic Business Center at ebc@uspto.gov or 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DEVANG R PATEL/
Primary Examiner, AU 1735