Detailed Office Action
Notice of Pre-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
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/22/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final action on 07/01/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed on 11/03/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 – 6 remain pending and under examination. Claim 3 has been amended and finds support in at least the original claim set.
Applicant’s amendments to the specification have overcome the previous objection.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §103
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 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 3 and 5 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suga (US2004/0000355)
Regarding claim 1, Suga teaches a residue-free paste for bonding [Abstract]. Suga teaches the solder paste is a solder powder and a flux, the flux being 1 – 15 mass% and therefore the solder powder mass% is 85 – 95 mass% [0051], which falls within the claimed range of the brazing material.
Suga teaches a flux composition which contains the components of a highly viscous solvent [0024], a solid solvent (interpreted as the solid solvent) [0025], an optional thixotropic agent [0027], an activator [0026], and a liquid solvent [0028]. Wherein the solvents and thixotropic agent are interpreted as the claimed “binder material” and the activator is interpreted as the claimed “flux”. The total of the flux composition in Suga is 5 – 15% [0051]
Wherein the total content of the solvents and thixotropic agent are 80 – 99% of the Suga flux composition and therefore are 4 (0.8 * 5%) – 14.85 (0.99 * 15%) mass% relative to the residue-free paste [0024 – 0028, 0051], which overlaps with the claimed range of the binder material (5 – 20 mass%).
Wherein the activator (interpreted as the claimed “flux”) is 1 – 20% of the Suga flux composition [0026] and therefore, the total content relative to the brazing material (i.e. soldering powder) is 0.05 – 3.41 mass%, which overlaps with the claimed range of the flux relative to the brazing material [0051].
(activator) * 5 (minimum flux) = 0.05 -> (0.05/(95+0.05)) *100% = ~0.05%
0.2 (activator) * 15 (mass flux content) = 3 -> (3/(85+3)) *100% = 3.41%
Wherein Suga teaches that the solid solvent can be 2,5-dimethylhexane-2,5-diol (i.e. 2,5 – dimethyl – 2,5 – hexanediol) [0024], which meets the claimed limitation of the solid solvent having 8 – 10 carbon atoms and two or more hydroxyl groups. The heavy viscous solvent and liquid solvent of Suga interpreted as the liquid solvent of the binder [0025, 0028].
Wherein if the thixotropic agent is not included, the solvents (other than the solid solvent) would be present in the flux composition of Suga. The liquid solvent (i.e. the heavy viscous solvent and liquid solvent of Suga) would be 37.5 – 79.8 mass% of the total of the flux composition (i.e. solvents not including the activator (the activator being interpreted as the claimed “flux”)), which overlaps with the claimed range of 68 mass% or more.
3
0
%
(
80
%
(
m
i
n
c
o
n
t
e
n
t
%
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
v
a
t
o
r
)
-
50
%
max
s
o
l
i
d
s
o
l
v
e
n
t
c
o
n
t
e
n
t
)
80
%
m
i
n
c
o
n
t
e
n
t
%
n
o
t
i
n
l
c
u
d
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
v
a
t
o
r
*
100
=
37.5
%
79
%
(
99
%
(
m
a
x
c
o
n
t
e
n
t
%
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
v
a
t
o
r
)
-
20
%
min
s
o
l
i
d
s
o
l
v
e
n
t
c
o
n
t
e
n
t
)
99
%
m
a
x
c
o
n
t
e
n
t
%
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
v
a
t
o
r
*
100
=
79.8
%
When the optional thixotropic agent is present, it is present in a range of 0 – 1.01 mass% (if just bis(p-methyl-benzylidene)-sorbitol) or 5.05 – 16.3 mass% (if stearamide and/or bis(p-methyl-benzylidene)-sorbitol) [0027 and 0051] relative to the flux composition of Suga excluding the activator (which is interpreted as the claimed “flux”), which overlaps with the claimed range of 11% or less.
1
%
99
%
m
a
x
c
o
n
t
e
n
t
%
n
o
t
i
n
l
c
u
d
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
v
a
t
o
r
*
100
=
1.01
%
5
%
99
%
m
a
x
c
o
n
t
e
n
t
%
n
o
t
i
n
l
c
u
d
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
v
a
t
o
r
*
100
=
5.05
%
13
%
80
%
m
i
n
c
o
n
t
e
n
t
%
n
o
t
i
n
l
c
u
d
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
v
a
t
o
r
*
100
=
16.3
%
With regards to the overlapping ranges taught, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected overlapping ranges as disclosed. Selection of overlapping ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP § 2144.05 I). “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”
Regarding claim 2, Suga teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Suga teaches that the residue left behind after heating to the reflow soldering temperature is 1 mass% or less [0048], which falls within the claimed range, and that the reflow soldering temperature is 200 – 350°C [0050], meeting/overlapping the claimed limitation of 1 mass% or less residue after heating to 250°C.
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Suga teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Suga teaches that the solid solvent can be 2,5-dimethylhexane-2,5-diol (i.e. 2,5 – dimethyl – 2,5 – hexanediol) [0025], which meets claim 5. Furthermore, as evidenced by [0026] of the instant invention, 2,5-dimethylhexane-2,5-diol does not cause an endothermic reaction.
Regarding claim 6, Suga teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Suga teaches that the viscous solvent (interpreted as the claimed liquid solvent) can be isobornylcyclohexanol [0024], meeting the claimed limitation.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suga (US2004/0000355), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Lei (CN1836825, using espacenet translation provided with OA on 07/01/25).
Regarding claim 4, Suga teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Suga teaches that the solder powder (interpreted as the brazing material) can include metal, for example Sn-3Ag-0.5Cu alloy [Example 2, 3, and 5], meeting the claimed limitation. Suga does not teach that the brazing material includes boric acid and/or borax.
Lei teaches a soldering flux [0002]. Lei teaches that the soldering flux includes a combination of boric acid and an organic acid (including carboxylic acid [0019]) as the activators [0012] and explicitly teaches Sn-3.0Ag-0.5Cu as the soldering composition [0025]. Lei discloses that “boric acid is very weak, but adding polyhydroxy compounds to the boric acid solution can form complexes and H+, thereby enhancing the acidity of the solution” and that “boiling points and decomposition temperatures of boric acid and organic acids are quite different, the boiling point of the flux and the decomposition temperature of the activator can be distributed in a larger range, maintaining high activity of the flux throughout the entire welding process”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have included boric acid to the flux (specifically the activator) of the soldering paste of Suga. Both Suga and Lei are directed to the same field of endeavor of soldering compositions and similar soldering metal compositions, including specifically Sn-3Ag-0.5Cu alloy, and using organic acid (including carboxylic acid) as an activator. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Suga and Lei. An ordinarily skilled artisan would also have been motivated to combine the teachings to include boric acid to the flux (specifically the activator) of Suga because, as disclosed in Lei, the combination of boric acid and organic acid enhances acidity of the solution (which would improve removal of oxides) and that the differences in boiling/decomposition temperatures expands/enhances the temperature range at which the flux maintains high activity during the bonding process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Suga is directed to a solder material with does not meet the claimed invention of brazing material. Applicant references ISO 857-2 which describes brazing and soldering and states that brazing uses a material with a melting point over 450°C and soldering uses a filler material under 450°C. The applicant’s arguments and evidence have been fully considered but are not persuasive. In particular, while brazing and soldering are generally distinguished by melting points of the filler material used, the claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation and under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard the solder of Suga would meet claimed limitation of “brazing material”. The brazing material is not defined/limited (such as explicitly requiring a melting temperature) except that it is used for brazing. To this, the examiner provides evidence in Matsumoto (NPL). Matsumoto describes low-temperature brazing processes [Abstract] including using Sn alloys [Table 1] which are below 450°C in melting point. As such, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive because the solder of Suga meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “brazing material”.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US2020/0187363 – Flux for solder paste with solid solvent, liquid solvent, and thixotropic agent
Conclusion
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 Austin M Pollock whose telephone number is (571)272-5602. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (11 - 8 ET).
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/AUSTIN POLLOCK/Examiner, Art Unit 1738 /SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738