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 § 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.
Claim 4 is 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. Claim 4 recites “adjusting the flow rate of the first molten solder using an upstream adjusting part” and “adjusting the flow rate of the second molten solder using an downstream adjusting part”. While support for the upstream adjusting part and the downstream adjusting part being used to adjust the “amount” of the molten solder in 0053, support for adjusting the “flow rate” cannot be found.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grasmann (DE 41 32 582 A1) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2019/0039159 A1), Okano et al. (JP 63-281768 A), Corsaro et al. (US 4,101,066 A), and Yoshino et al. (JP 8-335773).
Regarding claim 1, Grasmann teaches:
A method of processing a substrate [PCB (16)] using a jet soldering apparatus [device for soldering in figures 1, 2, and 7] having:
a first housing [first nozzle (24)];
a first supply port [first nozzle orifice (36)] provided on the first housing and configured to provide first molten solder [a first solder wave];
a second housing [second nozzle (26)];
a second supply [second nozzle orifice (50)] port provided on the second housing and configured to provide second molten solder [a second solder wave], the second supply port being a slit-shaped opening [compare figures 1 and 2 to see that orifice (50) is rectangular and thus slit shaped];
a conveyance unit [runs means not shown and track; abstract and pg. 4] configured to convey the substrate, the conveyance unit including a conveyance rail [track (14)]; and
a drive unit [first and second pumps (64, 54)],
wherein a distance (G) [width of edge (40)] between the first supply port and the second supply port along the substrate conveyance direction is smaller than a width (Z1), along the substrate conveyance direction, of the first supply port [see figure 1]; and
the distance (G) [width of edge (40)] between the first supply port and the second supply port along the substrate conveyance direction is smaller than a width (Z2) of the second supply port along the substrate conveyance direction [see figure 1],
the method comprising:
providing the first molten solder from the first supply port [a first solder wave]; and
providing the second molten solder from the second supply port [a second solder wave],
wherein:
the first molten solder and the second molten solder are mixed so as to obtain mixed molten solder [see figure 7],
the mixed molten solder does not fall back into a solder supply between the first supply port and the second supply port along the substrate conveyance direction [see figure 7], and
an upper surface of the mixed molten solder is not positioned below a lower end of the conveyance rail in the distance between the first supply port and the second supply port such that the mixed molten solder is not separated from the substrate conveyed along the conveyance rail by the conveyance unit in an entire area between the first supply port and the second supply port [a PCB placed on track (14), like that shown in figure 5, would not be separated from the combined wave along a portion of track (14), as shown in figure 7; note that the distance and entire area are where the combined solder is above the track].
Grasmann does not teach:
the first supply port having a plurality of openings arranged in a plurality of rows along a substrate conveyance direction;
the width, along the substrate conveyance direction, is between: (i) the furthest upstream point of the furthest upstream opening of the plurality of openings of the first supply port; and (ii) the furthest downstream point of the furthest downstream opening of the plurality of openings of the first supply port; and
during a period in which the first molten solder and the second molten solder are simultaneously supplied, a flow rate of the first molten solder supplied from the first supply port is 0.8 times or more and 1.2 times or less of a flow rate of the second molten solder from the second supply port.
Concerning the plurality of rows of openings and the width:
Okano teaches a jet soldering apparatus wherein nozzles (32) and (72) have no place where the mixed solder falls back into the solder supply therebetween, nozzle (32) is a single opening, and nozzle (72) comprises porous plate (71) having a plurality of openings in rows; wherein the openings span a distance wider than the gap between nozzles (72) and (32), i.e. G<Z1, and the openings span is larger than that of nozzle (32); i.e. Z2<Z1; figure 3.
Suzuki teaches primary jet nozzle (30) comprises solder flow forming plate (32) which is a flat plate being the same size as jet injection opening (31) and is provided with a plurality of jet injection holes (32b) in four rows from which the molten solder (S) is stably injected to a desired height with strong energy; 0061 and figure 4.
Yoshino teaches a dual wave soldering apparatus comprising nozzle (A) and nozzle (B) wherein nozzle (A) has a plurality of openings (1) having an overall width greater than the width of ejection port (3) of nozzle (B); see figure 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate plates like that of Okano, Suzuki, and Yoshino; i.e. plates having arrayed openings, into Grasmann since they are well-known soldering plates, to increase the width of the first supply port, and/or in order to stably inject molten solder to a desired height with strong energy, minus any unexpected results.
Concerning the flow rate:
Corsaro teaches a dual wave soldering apparatus wherein the proper flow rate of each wave is determined by trail and error in order to reduce the presence of solder crossovers; 6:39-65.
Yoshino teaches a dual wave soldering apparatus comprising nozzle (A) and nozzle (B) wherein nozzle (A) has a plurality of openings (1) having an overall width greater than the width of ejection port (3) of nozzle (B) and the nozzle (A) has a projecting wave and nozzle (B) has a laminar waveform; see figure 1. Note these waveforms are like that of applicant’s figure 4.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to control the flow rates to the claimed flow rates in order to achieve the desired waveform (like that of the applicant’s), to reduce the presence of solder crossovers, and/or because each apparatus will have its own unique ideal operating flow rate that must be determined by trial and error, minus any unexpected results.
Regarding claim 2, Grasmann teaches:
wherein a driving force to the first molten solder is given by a first drive unit [first pump (64)]; and
wherein a driving force to the second molten solder is given by a second drive unit [second pump (54)].
Regarding claim 3, Grasmann does not teach:
wherein the width (Z2) of the second supply port along the substrate conveyance direction is 1/3 or less of the width (Z1), along the substrate conveyance direction, between: (i) the furthest upstream point of the furthest upstream opening of the plurality of openings of the first supply port; and (ii) the furthest downstream point of the furthest downstream opening of the plurality of openings of the first supply port.
Okano teaches the distance spanned by the porous plate openings is greater than the distance of the opening of nozzle (32); figure 3.
Yoshino teaches a double wave soldering apparatus comprising nozzle (A) and nozzle (B) wherein nozzle (A) has a plurality of openings (1) having an overall width greater than the width of ejection port (3) of nozzle (B); see figure 1.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the difference between widths any desired amount, including 1/3 less, to control the flow of solder, and/or to limit the size of the solder wave, minus any unexpected results.
Regarding claim 4, Grasmann does not teach:
adjusting the flow rate of the first molten solder using an upstream adjusting part which is adjacent to the first supply port, the upstream adjusting part being arcuate or oblique with respect to the first housing; or
adjusting the flow rate amount of the second molten solder using a downstream adjusting part which is adjacent to the second supply port, the downstream adjusting part being arcuate or oblique with respect to the second housing.
Suzuki teaches jet solder bath (20B) comprising secondary jet nozzle (60) adjacent to oblique downstream forming portion (66) that forms the flow of the molten solder to change a jet injection width; 0090 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 the Suzuki downstream forming portion into Grasmann in order to be able to control the height of the solder wave or to change the width of the second nozzle. Note that since the prior uses an identical adjusting part then it too will adjust the flow rate when moved.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues,
“Grasmann teaches that the second molten solder flow delays and blocks the forward component of the first molten solder flow. It is evident that the second molten solder flow has a significant influence on the first molten solder flow.”
This is not persuasive since the claims do not exclude this from happening.
The applicant argues,
“Furthermore, the opening in the first nozzle 24 is much smaller than the opening in the second nozzle 26 (see, e.g., FIG. 7 of Grasmann (reproduced above) and the second full paragraph on page 6 of the English translation of Grasmann).
0048 the instant specification describes that "In the conventional aspect, the amount of the molten solder S supplied from the second supply port 135 is considerably large, and the amount of the molten solder S supplied from the second supply port 135 is nearly 1.5 to 2 times the amount of the molten solder S supplied from the first supply port 125" (emphasis added). This explanation applies to the disclosure of Grasmann.”
This is not persuasive since the Grasmann first nozzle was modified by Okano, Suzuki, and Yoshino.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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