DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed 04/13/26.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The rejection of Claims 1-4 and 6-10 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 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 01/12/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 1-3 and 6-10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bae et al. (KR 10-2013-0042241) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 01/12/26 is NOT overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bae et al. (KR 10-2013-0042241).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on the Machine English translation as the English equivalent of foreign patent publication KR 10-2013-0042241 (herein referred to as “Bae et al.”). Unless otherwise indicated, all page, paragraph, and figure numbers refer to those found in the Machine English translation.
Bae et al. discloses a flux composition using a ball grid array (BGA) package that uses solder balls for semiconductor devices ([0001]-[0006]; Fig. 1); the composition comprises epoxy resin, activator, and solvent (page 4). The epoxy resin includes bisphenol A type as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
134
214
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 4) (which is a substituted phenol group) (which has a single benzene ring), while the activator includes maleic anhydride (page 5) (corresponds to Applicant’s Formula 8), and the solvent includes xylene ([0031]). The activator is included in an amount 10-30 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the resin ([0039]); the solvent is included in an amount 20-50 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the resin ([0043]).
It is further the position of the Office that the resulting composition would inherently read on the physical and chemical limitations as recited in the claims. Evidence is provided by the fact that the resin, activator, and solvent of the flux composition as disclosed by Bae et al. is identical to the Applicant’s preferred flux composition materials within the preferred wt% ranges as preferred by the Applicant (see, for example, present Claims 1, 6, and 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on the Machine English translation as the English equivalent of foreign patent publication KR 10-2013-0042241 (herein referred to as “Bae et al.”). Unless otherwise indicated, all page, paragraph, and figure numbers refer to those found in the Machine English translation.
The closest prior art is provided by Bae et al. (KR 10-2013-0042241), which discloses a flux composition using a ball grid array (BGA) package that uses solder balls for semiconductor devices ([0001]-[0006]; Fig. 1); the composition comprises epoxy resin, activator, and solvent (page 4). The epoxy resin includes bisphenol A type as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
134
214
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 4), while the activator includes maleic anhydride (page 5) (corresponds to Applicant’s Formula 8), and the solvent includes xylene ([0031]). The activator is included in an amount 10-30 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the resin ([0039]); the solvent is included in an amount 20-50 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the resin ([0043]). However, it is the position of the Office that neither Bae et al. singly nor in further combination with any other prior art discloses flux composition as recited in the claim, particularly in regards to the exact nature of the aromatic resin.
Response to Arguments
8. The Applicant argues on page 15 that the “expression ‘having a single benzene ring’ clearly excludes any structure containing two or more benzene rings and strictly limits the aromatic resin to a mono-aromatic structure,” such that bisphenol A as disclosed by Bae et al. cannot read on the aromatic resin as recited in Claim 1. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Notice that “having a single benzene ring” does not necessarily exclude any structures having multiple benzene rings as the term “having” can be interpreted as being open-ended; bisphenol A as disclosed by Bae et al. still inherently has “a single benzene ring” within its multi-benzene ring structure. Nowhere in the present Specification has the Applicant defined the transitional phrase “having” to be close-ended to exclude the presence of multiple benzene rings. See MPEP 2111.03(IV).
Conclusion
9. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
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, Jennifer A Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights