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
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed on 05/01/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 – 10 remain pending. Claims 1 and 3 – 6 remain withdrawn. Claims 2 and 7 – 10 remain under examination.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previous objection
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous rejection of claims 2 and 7 – 10 under 112(b)
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 (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.
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 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 2 and 8 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furusawa (US2020/0187363).
Regarding claims 2 and 9 – 10, Furusawa teaches a solder/bonding paste containing a liquid solvent and at least two solid solvents [0019]. The liquid solvent can be one or more of α-terpineol, isooctadecanol, and tetraethylene glycol [0020], meeting claim 10, and present in a range of 10 – 90 mass% [0021], which overlaps with the claimed range of 68% or more. Furusawa teaches that the solid solvent can be 2,5-dimethyl-2,5-hexanediol, meeting claim 9.
The flux (interpreted as the claimed binder given the identical components of a solid solvent and liquid solvent) is present in a range of 5 – 20 mass% of the paste, which falls within the claimed range [0041]. The metal bonding material (solder meeting the BRI of “brazing material”) is present in an amount of 80 – 95 mass% [0041], which falls within the claimed range.
Lastly, the flux (interpreted as the claimed binder) can contain a thixotropic agent in a range of 1 10% [0036], which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 8, Furusawa teaches the invention as applied above in claim 2. Wherein the flux (interpreted as the binder material of Furusawa) requires only the liquid solvent and solid solvent and the liquid solvent can preferably be α-terpineol [0020] and the solid solvent can preferably be 2,2-dimethyl-1,3-propanediol (i.e., neopentyl glycol) and 2,5-dimethyl-2,5-hexanediol [0022].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected the combination above as the flux material of Furusawa to achieve predictable results. An ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving predictable results because the components noted above are preferable embodiments of their respective components.
Moreover, the boiling point of α-terpineol is ~217°C, the boiling of 2,5-dimethyl-2,5-hexanediol is ~215°C, and the boiling points of 2,2-dimethyl-1,3-propanediol (i.e., neopentyl glycol) is ~209°C. As such, at 250°C these components would be expected to have boiled away and therefore the residue to be essentially 0%, which meets the claimed range.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furusawa (US2020/0187363), as applied to claim 2, in further view of Minagawa (NPL, 2005)
Regarding claim 7, Furusawa teaches the invention as applied above in claim 2. Furusawa teachers that the bonding material is metal [0041]. Furusawa does not teach the presence of boric acid or borax, meeting the claimed limitation. Furusawa does not discuss the oxygen content of the metal bonding material.
Minagawa provides teachings and discussion of the production of lead-free solder powder for electronic bonding applications [Title, Abstract]. Minagawa teaches that lead-free solder powder requires demanding specifications including narrow size distribution, sphericity with minimal satellites, and an oxygen content of ~100 ppm, which falls within the claimed range [Introduction].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the metal bonding material of Furusawa (which includes lead-free solder alloys [0040]) and controlled the oxygen content to be ~100 ppm, as disclosed by Minagawa. An ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Furusawa and Minagawa are both directed to lead-free solder alloys. Additionally, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Minagawa teaches that this approximate oxygen content is a requirement for lead-free solder alloys for bonding electronic components, which Furusawa is applied to [Title].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/01/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner notes that the applicant’s amendments and arguments thereto have overcome the previous rejection under 112(b). As such, based on the updated interpretation of the claims, the previously cited prior art does not anticipate the claims.
Upon further consideration, a new rejection is made of Furusawa (US2020/0187363). Applicant’s arguments are pertinent to Furusawa and therefore a full response is provided.
Applicant argues that the prior art 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 the prior art relied upon 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 alloy of the prior art meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “brazing material”.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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
Prosecution Insights