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 1-15 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
The term “close” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of “close” are unclear.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the housing" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the inside" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the extraction opening" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the annular" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the connection" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the retaining" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the retaining" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the upper" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the housing" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the supporting" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the inside" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the holder" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the supporting" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the soldering wire" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 9, line 3 it is unclear if “a conducting member” is referring to the “a conducting member” in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the position" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the soldering wire" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the holder" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the cavity" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the housing" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the identification" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the upper" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the solder detected" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the camera" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the solderings" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the solder detected" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the solderings" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guan (CN-105798418A).
With respect to claim 1, Guan teaches a soldering apparatus (title; and figure 1) having an extraction device (14/15) for extracting fumes during soldering, the soldering apparatus having a soldering head (12) having at least one soldering material feed (9/10) and at least one soldering piston (7/11) which interacts therewith; and a support surface (1/17), located therebelow, for the soldering points to be soldered in the workpieces (electronic component); the extraction device (14) being connected to an extraction pump or the like (the act of suction intrinsically requires an extraction pump or the like) via a pipe (hose 15), characterized in that arranged in the soldering head (10) is at least one extraction opening (smoke inlet 14), located close to the soldering points to be soldered of the workpieces (electronic components), which extraction opening is connected to a conducting member (the body that forms the smoke inlet and is connected to the soldering head) for conducting away the fumes, which is integrated in the soldering head (12) and can be connected to the extraction pump (figures 1-2; and the machine translation).
With respect to claim 9, Guan teaches wherein the extraction device (14/15) is provided with a conducting member (the body that forms the smoke inlet and is connected to the soldering head) with at least one connection support (portion that connects the body to the soldering head 12) with at least one extraction opening (14) for guiding away fumes, and at least one connection support (portion that connects the hose 15 to the body) for connection to a pipe (hose 15) to an extraction pump (figures 1-2; and the machine translation).
With respect to claim 11, Guan teaches wherein the soldering apparatus (controller 4) is assigned a control device comprising a measuring system (laser positioning probe 13) with a measuring instrument integrated therein, by which the position of the soldering point is ascertained, by a marking at the workpiece to be soldered, and the soldering head with the soldering wire feed and the soldering piston interacting with same is moved into this position automatically and soldered in controlled manner by the control device (figures 1-2; and the machine translation).
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fukunaka (US 7,419,085B2).
With respect to claim 12, Guan does not teach that the measuring instrument integrated in the soldering apparatus has at least one camera and/or a sensor unit arranged in the soldering head which is aligned to the soldering point and detects this by photographs, by which image coordinates are produced and the at least one soldering point on the workpiece surface is ascertained and determined in X- and y- direction by means of an evaluation unit, and from this the soldering wire feed and the soldering piston of the soldering head (20) are guided automatically to this soldering position by the control device and the soldering is carried out in controlled manner.
However, Fukunaka teaches a soldering apparatus with a measuring instrument integrated in the soldering apparatus has at least one camera and/or a sensor unit arranged in the soldering head which is aligned to the soldering point and detects this by photographs, by which image coordinates are produced and the at least one soldering point on the workpiece surface is ascertained and determined in X- and y- direction by means of an evaluation unit, and from this the soldering wire feed and the soldering piston of the soldering head are guided automatically to this soldering position by the control device and the soldering is carried out in controlled manner (figure 6; and embodiment 6).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the image based positioning system of Fukunaka on the apparatus of Guan in order to ensure that the electronic devices are soldered in the proper location(s).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Martis et al. (US2010/0169053A1) (hereafter Martis).
With respect to claim 14, Guan does not teach wherein the identification indicated on the upper visible surface of the workpiece is ascertained by the measuring instrument together with the solder detected by the camera and stored in a database in order to make it possible for the solderings produced to be traced.
However, Martis teaches using the identification indicated on the upper visible surface of the workpiece is ascertained by the measuring instrument together with the solder detected by the camera and stored in a database in order to make it possible for the solderings produced to be traced (paragraphs 15-16, 19, 24-28, 33, and 36).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the indicia inspection process of Martis in the process of Guan in order to ensure that the components are soldered with the desired process.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tombs et al. (US2015/0273634A1) (hereafter Tombs).
With respect to claim 15, Guan does not teach wherein using a photograph or sequence of images, the soldering detected by the camera of the measuring instrument is compared, as actual state, with a target value of the solder and evaluated in order at least to find out from this whether each of the solderings has taken place within the established tolerance values.
However, Tombs teaches wherein using a photograph or sequence of images, the soldering detected by the camera of the measuring instrument is compared, as actual state, with a target value of the solder and evaluated in order at least to find out from this whether each of the solderings has taken place within the established tolerance values (Figures 1-10; and paragraphs 77 and 124).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the photographic comparison of Tombs in the process of Guan in order to that the components have been satisfactorily soldered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8, 10, and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KILEY SHAWN STONER whose telephone number is (571)272-1183. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday.
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 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 Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KILEY S STONER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
