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 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
With respect to claim 2, limitation “when said reflow soldering furnace is working stably” (line 3) is ambiguous because it is unclear what is meant by working stably? Applicant’s specification repeats this same language [0019] without describing what is implied by working stably and therefore, is subject to varying interpretations. The recited vague language fails to clearly set forth the scope, rendering the claim indefinite. For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with specification, the claim is taken to mean: keeping the opening extent of said first intake valve device at a preset value and regulating the opening extent of said second intake valve device until said actual detection value (Dv) is equal to said target set value (Tv). Appropriate correction is requested.
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 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishina et al. (US 5467912, hereafter “Mishina”) in view of Otsuki (JP 11-340618-A, see translation of record).
Regarding claim 1, Mishina discloses a gas control method for a reflow soldering furnace (figs. 2-4, abstract), wherein a furnace chamber of said reflow soldering furnace comprises a preheating zone 202, a heating/reflow zone 203 and a cooling zone 204 (figs. 2, 4; col. 5, lines 40-50), said gas control method comprising control means 226 controlling motor controllers (227) and gas flow rate control valves (223, 233) based on detected gas density & temperature so that the density and temperature of the working nitrogen gas reaches desired values necessary for solder reflow, suppressing oxidation (col. 6, lines 30-60; col. 7, lines 20-36); the method includes a first intake valve device 223 configured to control fluid communication between the preheating zone 202 and input working gas to the preheating zone by cross flow blowers 209 (col. 6, lines 32-35), and a second intake valve device 233 configured to control fluid communication between the cooling zone 204 and input working gas to the cooling zone by gas supply nozzle 224 (see figs. 2, 4; col. 6, lines 38-43). One skilled in the art would understand that a nitrogen gas source is intrinsically present (not explicitly shown in figure) in Mishina since nitrogen is being supplied.
Mishina teaches controlling nitrogen concentration to suppress oxidation, but is silent concerning detecting an oxygen concentration in said furnace chamber and controlling oxygen concentration by regulating opening(s) of the valve(s). However, such technique is known in the art. Otsuki discloses a gas control method for a reflow soldering furnace (fig. 1, [0005]), wherein a furnace chamber 1 of said reflow soldering furnace comprises a preheating zone 8 [0014], the gas control method comprises detecting an oxygen concentration in said furnace chamber using a detector 9 wherein said detected oxygen concentration reflects an actual detection value (Dv) and controlling the concentration in the chamber 1 to a constant low oxygen concentration [0015]. Otsuki discloses controlling extent of a first control valve device 22 and that of a second control valve device 32 until said actual detection value (Dv) reaches a target set value [0016], wherein the first control valve device 22 establishes fluid communication to said preheating zone 8, and the second control valve device 32 establishes fluid communication to a subsequent zone after heating (fig. 1). Concerning the oxygen concentration, Otsuki teaches that when there is a large/significant fluctuation in the oxygen concentration (i.e. detection value Dv is greater than regulation set value Rv), both the first valve 22 & second valve 32 are adjusted (rough regulation) to lower the oxygen concentration to desired low target value [0016]. At other times when there is not a large fluctuation in the oxygen concentration (i.e. Dv is smaller than Rv), only the first valve 22 needs to be adjusted (fine regulation) to control the oxygen concentration to desired low target value while the keeping the second valve in closed state [0016]. Specifically, controller 92 determines the opening amount of the flow control valves based on measured oxygen concentration data [0021]. In this manner, Otsuki teaches both rough regulation (adjust both valves) & fine regulation (adjust only one valve) in order to control the concentration in the chamber to a constant low oxygen concentration. The oxygen concentration is regulated to avoid oxidation and maintain inert atmosphere during soldering of electronic components to the circuit board [0007-0008], which is equivalent to Mishina’s objective of suppressing oxidation during solder reflow. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to regulate the opening extent of the first and second control valves as recited in the method of Mishina with a motivation to maintain a low target oxygen concentration while adjusting for fluctuations during the soldering process, thereby avoiding oxidation as desired by both Mishina and Otsuki.
As to claim 2, Mishia as modified by Otsuki above discloses regulating the opening extent of the first intake valve device and the second intake valve device until detection value (Dv) of the oxygen concentration is equal to target set value (Tv) of low concentration (Otsuki- [0016], [0021]). Concerning the first intake valve device & second intake valve device, there is only a finite number of predictable options in terms of regulation: 1) hold one valve at a preset value while changing other valve 2) increase or decrease the opening extent of both valves or 3) alternate opening extent of both valves. In any scenario, skilled artisan would recognize the objective of providing sufficient flow and maintaining target oxygen level. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason (ensure sufficient flow and maintaining target oxygen level) to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the opening extent of the first and/or second valve device(s) in recited manner based on detected value of oxygen concentration in the gas control method of Mishina & Otsuki.
As to claim 4, Mishina discloses working state of the processing object/board 218 not being conveyed by the conveyor 207 and adjusting the control valve to control flow of the nitrogen gas (col. 6, line 65 thru col. 7, line 1) and recognizes that cost can be reduced by a reduction in the amount of supplied nitrogen gas (col. 8, lines 56-60). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to supply the nitrogen gas at the lowest flow rate through the valve(s) upon detecting that a circuit board is not present in the method of Mishina & Otsuki in order to reduce operational cost.
As to claims 5-6, Mishina discloses the working gas being nitrogen (col. 6, lines 62-63).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishina in view of Otsuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takahashi et al. (JP-07212030-A, see attached document, “Takahashi”).
As to claim 3, Otsuki discloses detecting oxygen concentration in a heating zone using a detector 9 (fig. 1), but does not mention peak higher temperature. However, Takahashi (also drawn to reflow soldering device using nitrogen- abstract) teaches a sensor S4 detecting the concentration of oxygen in the heating reflow zone T3 where temperature is highest (fig. 1, [0008]). Based on the detected concentration, the control circuit 14 regulates the opening/closing of the valves and adjusts the flow rate of nitrogen gas (fig. 2, [0010-0011]). In this manner, the consumption of nitrogen gas can be controlled to reduce cost [0003-0004], which is also similar to Mishina’s objective to reduce cost. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to detect oxygen concentration in highest temperature zone in the furnace in the method of Mishina and Otsuki in order to obtain comprehensive reading and regulate the nitrogen gas flow with a motivation to reduce cost, as suggested by Mishina and Takahashi.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim(s) 1-4 have been considered but are moot in light of new ground(s) of rejection set forth above. Current prior art rejection(s) includes new reference of Mishina and addresses the matter specifically challenged in the arguments.
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