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 § 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, 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naruse et al (JP2015123472, English translation) in view of Onozaki et al (JP2008221304, English translation).
Naruse, abstract, teaches a solder composition of which contains a flux containing (A) a rosin-based resin, (B) an activator, (C) a solvent, and (D) an antioxidant, and (E) a solder powder.
Naruse, page 2 of the English translation, teaches the rosin based resin can be an unsaturated organic acid-modified resins of the above rosins that can be reactive components of Diels-Alder reactions (aliphatic unsaturated monobasic acids such as (meth) acrylic acid, fumaric acid, maleic acid, etc.) adietic acids such as aliphatic unsaturated dibasic acids such as α, β-unsaturated carboxylic acids, and unsaturated carboxylic acids having an aromatic ring such as cinnamic acid) and abietic acids such as modified products thereof.
Naruse, page 2 of the English translation, teaches the activator (B) used can be a combination of 2,3-dibromobutanediol and oxalic acid.
Oxalic acid as taught by Naruse reads on General Formula (2) when R is 1 as claimed in claim 1.
Naruse, page 3 of the English translation, teaches in addition to the component (A), the component (B), the component (C) and the component (D), the flux used in the present invention, if necessary, a thixotropic agent.
Naruse, page 3 of the English translation, teaches the average particle diameter of the solder powder is preferably 1 μm or more and 40 μm or less.
Although Naruse, page 3 of the English translation, teaches the average particle diameter of the solder powder is preferably 1 μm or more and 40 μm or less, Naruse does not teach a particle size of less than 8 um.
Onozaki teaches a precoating solder composition.
Onozaki teaches as the solder paste, the center diameter (median diameter) of the solder particles is 2 μm or more and 4 μm or less, and the standard deviation SD when the particle size distribution of the solder powder is regarded as a normal distribution is 1 or less. By using this solder powder, the electrode was solder coated without the occurrence of bridges, and the generation of electrodes with insufficient solder amount was reduced.
It 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 to have the center diameter (median diameter) of the solder particles from 2 μm or more and 4 μm or less, and the standard deviation SD when the particle size distribution of the solder powder is regarded as a normal distribution is 1 or less as taught by Onozaki of the solder particles as taught by Naruse so by using this solder powder, the electrode was solder coated without the occurrence of bridges, and the generation of electrodes with insufficient solder amount was reduced.
Regarding claims 3-4, Naruse, page 2 of the English translation, teaches the blending amount of the component (B) is preferably 1% by mass to 10% by mass.
It 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 to choose the amount of 2,3-dibromobutanediol and oxalic acid present in the activator to obtain a solder composition which can sufficiently suppress a change of copper foil color under a flux residue after soldering (abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Naruse teaches dibromobutanediol.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naruse et al (JP2015123472, English translation) in view of Onozaki et al (JP2008221304, English translation) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Ishiga et al (US20080115861).
Naruse teaches the blending amount of the component (A) is preferably 14% by mass to 27% by mass.
Although Naruse teaches unsaturated organic acid-modified resins of the above rosins that can be reactive components of Diels-Alder reactions, Naruse does not teach an acid value of these resins.
Ishiga teaches a flux comprising a polyvalent alcohol ester of a resin acid (a1) as a base resin (A).
Ishiga, paragraph 29 of the PGPUB, teaches the resin acid constructuring the ester (a1) is exemplified by a known natural rosin such as gum rosin, a wood rosin and a tall oil rosin, and various derivatives of the said natural rosins.
Ishiga, paragraph 33 of the PGPUB, teaches the said derivative has an acid value of generally around 140-400.
It 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 for the organic acid-modified resins as taught by Naruse to have an acid value of 140-400mgKOH/g as taught by Ishiga as Ishiga teaches acid modifed resins used in fluxes generally have an acid value of around 140-400 mgKOH/g.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the present invention aims to provide a solder paste exhibiting excellent viscosity stability over time while preventing solder ball generation, even when using extremely fine solder powder. Neither Naruse nor Onozaki recognizes this problem. Applicant argues the prior art does not address the same problem as the invention.
Examiner respectfully traverses.
The instant claims do not claim a viscosity stability over time or solder ball generation associated with extremely fine powder distributions.
It is noted, “Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979).” See MPEP 2145 II. Further, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant further argues Naruse focuses on much larger particle sizes, and the Naruse's examples use particles around 20 µm. However, Naruse does not disclose, teach, or contemplate a solder alloy powder in which 99% or more of the particles are 8 µm or less, nor does Naruse recognize any viscosity instability or solder ball formation associated with such fine particle distributions.
Examiner respectfully traverses.
The particle size as taught by Naruse is not limited to it’s specific examples.
Applicant points to specific examples to support their position but those are just examples. The fact remains that the broad range of 1 μm or more and 40 μm or less overlaps with the claimed particle range.
However, “applicant must look to the whole reference for what it teaches. Applicant cannot merely rely on the examples and argue that the reference did not teach others.” In re Courtright, 377 F.2d 647, 153 USPQ 735,739 (CCPA 1967).
A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). MPEP 2123 I.
Applicant argues while Onozaki may describe a particle size distribution characterized by a particular median diameter and standard deviation, Onozaki does not address viscosity stability over time or solder ball generation associated with extremely fine powder distributions.
The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed.Cir. 2006); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662,1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). MPEP 2144 IV.
Therefore, it 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 to have the center diameter (median diameter) of the solder particles from 2 μm or more and 4 μm or less, and the standard deviation SD when the particle size distribution of the solder powder is regarded as a normal distribution is 1 or less as taught by Onozaki of the solder particles as taught by Naruse so by using this solder powder, the electrode was solder coated without the occurrence of bridges, and the generation of electrodes with insufficient solder amount was reduced.
Applicant argues Ishiga does not address the viscosity stability or solder ball generation issues associated with extremely fine solder powder. Therefore, even in view of Ishiga, the combination of references still fails to recognize the problem addressed by the present invention and fails to provide any teaching or suggestion of the claimed solution.
Examiner respectfully traverses.
The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed.Cir. 2006); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662,1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). MPEP 2144 IV.
Therefore, it 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 for the organic acid-modified resins as taught by Naruse to have an acid value of 140-400mgKOH/g as taught by Ishiga as Ishiga teaches acid modifed resins used in fluxes generally have an acid value of around 140-400 mgKOH/g.
Applicant argues the inventors have identified a technical problem, using powder where ≥99% of particles are ≤8 µm leads to viscosity increase over time and increased solder ball formation, which was not recognized in the prior art and the claimed invention provides a solution to that problem.
Examiner respectfully traverses.
The instant claims do not claim a viscosity stability over time or solder ball generation associated with extremely fine powder distributions.
It is noted, “Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979).” See MPEP 2145 II. Further, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant argues the present invention provides unexpected technical results. Applicant experimentally evaluated solder pastes prepared using three different sizes of solder powder shown in the following Table A. The solder pastes were prepared by mixing the flux of Comparative Example 2 from the application with each of solder powder of symbols 6, 7 and 8. The present invention unexpectedly achieves excellent viscosity stability over time, and effective suppression of solder ball generation even when using solder powder in which particles of size ≤8 µm constitute ≥99% by mass.
Examiner respectfully traverses.
The data is not commensurate in scope with the scope of the claims.
The data only shows a solder powder with a specific particle size to not exceed, a specific particle size of a mass fraction of powders exceeding a specific size is 1% of less, a specific particle size of a mass fraction of powder in a specific size range is 80% or more and a specific particle size of a mass fraction of powders smaller than the specific sizes is 10% or less, a specific maleic acid modified hydrogenated rosin, a specific halogenated aliphatic compound (diphenylguanidine), a specific dicarboxylic acid (oxalic acid), a specific thixotropic agent (polyamide and hardered castor oil) a specific solvent (diethylene monohexylether) while the claims broadly a composition comprising a powder in ANY amount in which a content of solder alloy particles having a particle size of 8 microns or less is 99% by mass or more, ANY acid modified rosin in ANY amount, ANY solvent in ANY amount, ANY halogenated aliphatic compound activator in ANY amount and ANY thixotropic agent in ANY amount.
It is unclear if the advantageous properties of the claimed invention are due to a specific flux components, the amount of specific flux components or specific powder size as taught in Table A of the arguments.
Examiner would like to point out that if the applicant wants the data to be commensurate in scope with the scope of the claims, the applicant need an affidavit stating the applicant acknowledges the data only points to a solder paste using specific types and amounts of the claimed components, and state any types and amounts of claimed components within the scope of the claims would work, as long as the content of solder alloy particles having a particle size of 8 µm or less is 99% by mass or more with respect to a total mass of the solder alloy powder, as presently claimed, would achieve the unexpected results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20080179383 teaches a solder paste.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFANIE J COHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5836. The examiner can normally be reached 10am- 6pm M-F.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571) 270-5713. 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.
/STEFANIE J COHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1732 4/22/26
Prosecution Insights