DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 7-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colijn (US 2017/0209949) in view of Spigarelli et al. (US 4685605, “Spigarelli”) & Takahashi et al. (US 2002/0011511, “Takahashi”).
Regarding claim 1, Colijn discloses a selective soldering machine 1 (see fig. 1) for selectively soldering workpieces [0007], 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] with a liquid/molten solder [0003, 0022]; 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 region(s) encompassing the operation (i.e. fluxing, heating).
PNG
media_image1.png
666
852
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Colijn is silent with respect to applying flux, heat or solder to the workpieces with continuous movement, without stopping the workpieces. However, continuous moving workpieces during soldering is known in the art. Spigarelli (drawn to continuous soldering system- title) teaches continuously moving circuit boards 27 on a conveyor 22, wherein nozzles 24/26 apply a stream of molten solder onto moving surfaces of the circuit boards for continuous processing (see fig. 1; col. 2, lines 60-63; col. 3, lines 65+). Similarly, Takahashi is directed to apparatus and method for soldering components to printed circuit boards (abstract). Analogous to Colijn, Takahashi teaches a conveyor 12 that is driven to continuously advance the printed circuit board 14 through fluxing area 16, heating area 20, and soldering area 24 in the apparatus 10 at an exemplary rate of 1.3 m per minute, without stopping, wherein the solder is a molten solder 26 (fig. 1, [0025]). Given teachings of Spigarelli & Takahashi, 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 a motivation to increase production output and reduce time. Hence, Colijn as modified by Spigarelli & Takahashi teaches continuously moving circuit boards and 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). Spigarelli and Takahashi also discloses conveyor continuously conveying the boards/workpieces without stopping (fig. 1). Colijn as modified above discloses the conveyor continuously moving the circuit board workpieces without stopping.
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 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]). Spigarelli also discloses a single conveyor 22 continuously conveying the boards/workpieces 27 without stopping (fig. 1).
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.
Claims 4, 6 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colijn in view of Spigarelli & Takahashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Martenson et al. (WO 2014/140192, hereafter “Martenson”, of record).
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]. Colijn does not mention moving the first or second soldering nozzle(s). Martenson is directed to method and devices for jetting material, including solder paste (abstract, [0002]). 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). The soldering nozzle moves along a machine direction as well as a direction orthogonal to the machine direction in order to apply solder [0022-0023]. Martenson teaches moving the depositing head/nozzle in three dimensions (includes conveying direction- figs. 8-9). Given teachings of Martenson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the first and second nozzles in Colijn to move in three dimensions to some extent (includes conveying direction & direction orthogonal to the conveying direction) in order to apply solder to circuit board so as 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, Spigarelli, Takahashi and Martenson in order to place the nozzle at precise, selective soldering positions on the circuit board.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colijn in view of Spigarelli, Takahashi & Martenson as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Hosoya et al. (JP 06-061638 A, 1994, of record) & Szymanowski et al. (US 2008/0302861).
As to claim 5, Colijn 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is allowed over prior art.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim(s) have been considered but are moot in light of new grounds of rejection set forth above. Current 103 rejection includes new references of Spigarelli & Takahashi regarding continuous movement– Spigarelli teaches nozzles 24/26 applying molten solder to surfaces of continuously moving circuit boards 27 (workpieces) by conveyor 22 (fig. 1), and addresses the matter specifically challenged in the arguments. Moreover, in response to arguments against Martenson reference individually concerning lack of “molten solder”, examiner submits this appears to be piecemeal analysis. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on a combination of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Colijn already teaches applying molten solder (as well as Spigarelli & Takahashi); Martenson is relied upon regarding the movement of nozzle, not for any solder feature.
Conclusion
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.
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
Prosecution Insights