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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-5, 8-13, 15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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 claims 4-5 and 15, limitations “the Bi-containing solder alloy initially introduced into the solder bath is introduced at predetermined time intervals or a predetermined timing in a time period from introduction of the Bi-containing solder alloy into the solder bath first to immediately before supply of the additionally supplied solder” are ambiguous. It is unclear what is meant by “initially introduced at predetermined time intervals” because “time intervals” implies multiple times and so, this is conflicting with “initially” introduced. Applicant’s specification repeats the same language [0021]. Moreover, it is confusing how the solder alloy is “initially introduced into the solder bath” in a time period which starts after the initial introduction (i.e. first introduction) - this rather appears to be ‘second’ introduction, not “initially introduced” as claimed. Any solder supplied into the bath after the first/initial introduction should be subsequently called as second, third etc. to avoid ambiguity. The recited contradictory language fails to clearly set forth the scope, rendering the claims indefinite. For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claims are taken to mean: wherein the Bi-containing solder alloy is initially introduced into the solder bath at a predetermined time.
Claims 8-9 are indefinite in scope due to dependency on claims 4-5 above. For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claims are taken to mean: wherein the additionally supplied solder is supplied based on a Bi content constituting a solder alloy in the solder bath immediately before the additionally supplied solder is supplied.
Claim 18 is indefinite in scope due to dependency on claim 15 above.
With respect to claims 10-13 and 19, limitation “the additionally supplied solder is supplied into the solder bath after a Bi-containing solder alloy having a mass substantially equal to a supplying amount of the additionally supplied solder is drawn out of the solder bath from the Bi-containing solder alloy in the solder bath” is ambiguous. First of all, the term “substantially equal” is subject to varying interpretations in the context of solder alloy amount and this same feature is merely repeated in the specification [0023], without any guidance. Secondly, phrase “drawn out of the solder bath from the Bi-containing solder alloy in the solder bath” (last 2 lines) appears to be redundant and confusing- it seems suffice to say that solder is drawn out of the solder bath. Based on description in specification, the supplying amount determination is dependent on a case when the supplied Bi-containing solder alloy has the same composition as the initial input composition, where the solder bath is “always almost full” [0041], which seems to be conditional feature. The recited vague language fails to clearly set forth the scope, rendering the claims indefinite. For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claims are taken to mean: supplying an additionally supplied solder to the solder bath having a Bi-containing solder alloy.
Appropriate corrections are 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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitajima et al. (US 6184475, hereafter “Kitajima”) in view of Applicant-admitted prior art (AAPA, see specification) & Yoshikawa et al. (US 10213879, “Yoshikawa”).
Regarding claim 1, Kitajima discloses soldering of printed circuit boards using a bath of solder alloy (fig. 27- step 14, col. 18, lines 45-52) with a solder supplying method comprising initially introducing a Bi-containing solder alloy (col. 2, lines 15-38) to a solder bath. Kitajima teaches that solder alloy melting temperature increases with increasing Bi content and therefore, Bi content is adjusted to control the melting temperature of the solder (figs. 1-2; col. 10, lines 26-29) - exemplary solder alloys includes approximately 46-55 wt% Bi (claims 1-2). Kitajima further teaches that satisfactory properties of tensile strength and elongation are obtained when the Bi content exceeds about 5 wt% but smaller than 60 wt% (col. 10, lines 15-51). In this manner, Kitajima teaches adjusting the Bi content in the solder alloy.
Kitajima does not disclose replenishing the solder bath with additional solder having a lower Bi content. However, the concept of refilling/replenishing solder bath is conventional in the art. Applicant’s original specification admits (AAPA) that a method of replenishing solder bath to maintain solder alloy composition has been known in the prior art (JP 3312618) (see Background- [0007]). Similarly, Yoshikawa discloses a solder supplying method comprising initially introducing a Bi-containing solder alloy (see table 1 solder alloy examples) to a solder bath with appropriate Cu content (col. 5, line 65 thru col. 6, line 9; col. 9, lines 10-12), and then replenishing with Sn-Ag-Bi solder alloy (col. 8, lines 45-50; claims 1-2) – the replenishing step meets supplying an additionally supplied solder. Yoshikawa teaches a low-Bi solder alloy with Bi content in a range of 0.1-0.8% for enhancing thermal fatigue resistance (col. 5, lines 20-29), which is lower than initial Bi content (46-55 wt%) in the solder alloy of Kitajima. Accordingly, the Bi content is an adjustable variable for achieving art-recognized results of desired mechanical properties such as tensile strength & elongation (as taught by Kitajima) and thermal fatigue resistance (as taught by Yoshikawa), and thus is a result-effective variable. Given teachings of Kitajima, AAPA & Yoshikawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replenish the solder bath with a solder alloy having a lower Bi content that the initial Bi-containing solder alloy in the method of Kitajima through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 (II). Hence, Kitajima as modified by AAPA & Yoshikawa discloses initially introducing a Bi-containing solder alloy (46-55 wt% Bi) to a solder bath and then replenishing with a lower Bi (0.1-0.8 wt%) Sn-Ag-Bi solder alloy, thereby adjusting the Bi content in the solder bath to maintain desired content with a motivation of obtaining target mechanical properties such as tensile strength, elongation and fatigue resistance.
As to claim 2, Kitajima discloses that the Bi-containing solder alloy contains at least In (figs. 1-2). Yoshikawa discloses that Bi-containing solder alloy and the additionally supplied solder each contain at least one of Ag, In and Zn (fig. 3; col. 11, lines 6-32).
As to claims 3 and 14, Kitajima discloses that the Bi-containing solder alloy is an Sn-Bi solder alloy (figs. 1-2). Yoshikawa also discloses Sn-Bi-Ag solder alloy (fig. 3; col. 11, lines 6-32).
As to claims 4-5 and 15, as best understood in light of indefinite claim language, the Bi-containing solder alloy is initially introduced into the solder bath at a predetermined time in Kitajima. Examiner notes that any time meets broad feature of “predetermined” time.
As to claims 6-9 and 16-18, Kitajima as modified by Yoshikawa above encompasses supplying additional solder adjusting the Bi content in the solder bath to maintain desired content with a motivation of obtaining target mechanical properties such as tensile strength, elongation and fatigue resistance. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supply the additional solder based on a Bi content in the solder bath in the method of Kitajima immediately before adding in order to ensure that proper amount and/or concentration of solder is added.
As to claims 10-13 and 19, Kitajima as modified in light of AAPA & Yoshikawa above discloses supplying an additionally supplied solder to the solder bath having a Bi-containing solder alloy. Examiner notes these claims are indefinite in scope for reasons explained above.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/18/25 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
Prosecution Insights