DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-9 and 11-20 in the reply filed on 5/08/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/08/2026.
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 1-9, 11 and 12 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “(d) at least one of the following elements up to 1 wt.% of nickel up to 1 wt.% of titanium up to 1 wt.% of cobalt up to 3.5 wt.% of indium up to 1 wt.% of zinc up to 1 wt.% of arsenic (e) optionally one or more of the following elements 0 to 1 wt.% of manganese 0 to 1 wt. %of chromium 0 to 1 wt.% of germanium 0 to 1 wt.% of iron 0 to 1 wt.% of aluminum 0 to 1 wt.% of phosphorus 0 to 1 wt.% of gold 0 to 1 wt.% of gallium 0 to 1 wt.% of tellurium 0 to 1 wt.% of selenium 0 to 1 wt.% of calcium 0 to 1 wt.% of vanadium 0 to 1 wt.% of molybdenum 0 to 1 wt.% of platinum 0 to 1 wt.% of magnesium 0 to 1 wt.% of rare earths,” and the claim also recites “wherein the alloy affirmatively contains said Ni in a concentration of 0.01 to 1 wt%; and wherein the alloy affirmatively contains said Ge in a concentration of 0.005 to 1 wt%,” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Furthermore, it is unclear as to whether or not the (d) and (e) limitations are intended to limit all of the recited elements to the recited upper ranges or whether recited elements can be present above the recited upper limits so long as at least one is present within the instantly claimed range.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-5, 7-9 and 18-20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 2010/0294565 A1 to Kawamata et al.
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Kawamata ‘565 discloses a lead-free, antimony-free solder alloy comprising the following composition (Kawamata, abstract, para [0051-0056]), which overlaps the instantly claimed composition:
Element
Claimed 1 wt%
Claim 18 wt%
Kawamata ‘565 wt%
Overlaps?
Ag
3.0-5.0
3.5-5
2.8-4
Yes
Bi
2.5-5.0
2-5
1.5-6
Yes
Cu
0.3-2
0.3-2
0.8-1.2
Yes
Ni
0.01-1
-
0.005-0.05
Yes
Ge
0.005-1
-
0.0002-0.02
Yes
In
-
0.01-3.5
0-1
Yes
Sn
Balance
Balance
Balance
Yes
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select any portion of the disclosed ranges of Kawamata ‘565 including the instantly claimed because Kawamata ‘565 discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
Regarding the instantly claimed limitation of “consisting essentially of,” the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of” limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps “and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)” of the claimed invention. For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, “consisting essentially of” will be construed as equivalent to “comprising.” If an applicant contends that additional steps or materials in the prior art are excluded by the recitation of “consisting essentially of,” applicant has the burden of showing that the introduction of additional steps or components would materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of applicant’s invention (see MPEP 2111.03 [R-3]). In the instant case, there is no clear indication in the instant specification or instant claims that Kawamata ‘565 contains any additional materials that materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of applicant's invention.
Regarding claims 2-5, 19 and 20, the alloy of Kawamata ‘565 overlaps the instantly claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 7, Kawamata ‘565 demonstrates alloys with melting points within the instantly claimed range (Kawamata ‘565, Table 1).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, the solder alloy of Kawamata ‘565 can be in the form of a solder paste and used to make a solder joint (Kawamata ‘565, para [0062]).
Claims 11-17 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 2010/0294565 A1 to Kawamata et al as applied to claims 1-5, 7-9 and 18-20 above and further in view of CN 101100735A to Long et al (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes).
Kawamata ‘565 discloses a solder alloy as set forth above. Kawamata ‘565 differs from instant claims 11-17 in that Kawamata ‘565 is silent as to the presence of rare earth metals in the alloy.
Long discloses that 0-1% of cerium, lanthanum and rare earth elements, overlapping the instantly claimed ranges of instant claims 11-17, may be added in amount of to a solder alloy of similar composition to the alloy of Kawamata ‘565 in order to increase the strength and creep resistance of the alloy (Long, para [0011, 0019]).
Regarding claims 11-17, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add 0-1% of cerium, lanthanum and rare earth elements to the alloy of Kawamata ‘565 as suggested by Long. The motivation for doing so would be to increase the strength and creep resistance of the alloy (Long, para [0011, 0019]). Regarding the overlapping ranges, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select any portion of the disclosed ranges of Kawamata ‘565 in view of Long including the instantly claimed because Kawamata ‘565 in view of Long discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
Claims 1-9 and 18-20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 2010/0307823 A1 to Kawamata et al.
Regarding claims 1, Kawamata ‘823 discloses a lead-free, antimony-free solder alloy comprising the following composition (Kawamata ‘823, abstract, para [0030-0037, 0064-0079]), which overlaps the instantly claimed composition:
Element
Claimed 1 wt%
Claim 18 wt%
Kawamata ‘823 wt%
Overlaps?
Ag
3.0-5.0
3.5-5
2.8-4
Yes
Bi
2.5-5.0
2-5
0.5-3
Yes
Cu
0.3-2
0.3-2
0.5-1.1
Yes
Ni
0.01-1
-
0.005-0.05
Yes
Ge
0.005-1
-
0.0002-0.02
Yes
In
-
0.01-3.5
3-5.5
Yes
Sn
Balance
Balance
Balance
Yes
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select any portion of the disclosed ranges of Kawamata ‘823 including the instantly claimed because Kawamata ‘823 discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
Regarding claims 2-6 and 19-20, the alloy of Kawamata ‘823 overlaps the instantly claimed ranges.
Additionally regarding claim 6, regarding the instantly claimed limitation of “consisting essentially of,” the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of” limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps “and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)” of the claimed invention. For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, “consisting essentially of” will be construed as equivalent to “comprising.” If an applicant contends that additional steps or materials in the prior art are excluded by the recitation of “consisting essentially of,” applicant has the burden of showing that the introduction of additional steps or components would materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of applicant’s invention (see MPEP 2111.03 [R-3]). In the instant case, there is no clear indication in the instant specification or instant claims that Kawamata ‘823 contains any additional materials that materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of applicant's invention.
Regarding claim 7, Kawamata ‘823 demonstrates alloys with melting points within the instantly claimed range (Kawamata ‘823, Table 1).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, the solder alloy of Kawamata ‘823 can be in the form of a solder paste and used to make a solder joint (Kawamata ‘823, para [0061]).
Claims 11-17 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 2010/0307823 A1 to Kawamata et al as applied to claims 1-9 and 18-20 above and further in view of CN 101100735A to Long et al (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes).
Kawamata ‘823 discloses a solder alloy as set forth above. Kawamata ‘823 differs from instant claims 11-17 in that Kawamata ‘823 is silent as to the presence of rare earth metals in the alloy.
Long discloses that 0-1% of cerium, lanthanum and rare earth elements, overlapping the instantly claimed ranges of instant claims 11-17, may be added in amount of to a solder alloy of similar composition to the alloy of Kawamata ‘823 in order to increase the strength and creep resistance of the alloy (Long, para [0011, 0019]).
Regarding claims 11-17, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add 0-1% of cerium, lanthanum and rare earth elements to the alloy of Kawamata ‘823 as suggested by Long. The motivation for doing so would be to increase the strength and creep resistance of the alloy (Long, para [0011, 0019]). Regarding the overlapping ranges, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select any portion of the disclosed ranges of Kawamata ‘823 in view of Long including the instantly claimed because Kawamata ‘823 in view of Long discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
Claims 1-9 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 6,365,097 to Yamashita et al.
Regarding claims 1, Yamashita discloses a lead-free solder alloy comprising the following composition (Yamashita, abstract, column 1 line 55 – column 3 line 11), which overlaps the instantly claimed composition:
Element
Claimed wt%
Yamashita wt%
Overlaps?
Ag
3.0-5.0
0-4
Yes
Bi
2.5-5.0
0-21
Yes
Cu
0.3-2
0-2
Yes
Ni
0.01-1
0-0.2
Yes
Ge
0.005-1
0-0.1
Yes
Sn
Balance
Balance
Yes
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select any portion of the disclosed ranges of Yamashita including the instantly claimed because Yamashita discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
Regarding the limitation “antimony-free,” antimony is not contained in the alloy of Yamashita.
Regarding claims 2-6, the alloy of Yamashita overlaps the instantly claimed ranges.
Additionally regarding “consisting essentially of” in instant claim 6, the alloy of Yamashita does not contain any additional unrecited elements.
Regarding claim 7, Yamashita discloses the alloy has a melting point lower than 221 °C (Yamashita, abstract), overlapping the instantly claimed ranges.
Regarding claims 8, the solder alloy of Yamashita can be in the form of a stick (Yamashita, column 3 lines 7-11).
Regarding claim 9, the solder of Yamashita is used for soldering, e.g. forming soldered joints.
Claims 11-17 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 6,365,097 to Yamashita et al as applied to claims 1-9 above and further in view of CN 101100735A to Long et al (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes).
Yamashita discloses a solder alloy as set forth above. Yamashita differs from instant claims 11-17 in that Yamashita is silent as to the presence of rare earth metals in the alloy.
Long discloses that 0-1% of cerium, lanthanum and rare earth elements, overlapping the instantly claimed ranges of instant claims 11-17, may be added in amount of to a solder alloy of similar composition to the alloy of Yamashita in order to increase the strength and creep resistance of the alloy (Long, para [0011, 0019]).
Regarding claims 11-17, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add 0-1% of cerium, lanthanum and rare earth elements to the alloy of Yamashita as suggested by Long. The motivation for doing so would be to increase the strength and creep resistance of the alloy (Long, para [0011, 0019]). Regarding the overlapping ranges, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select any portion of the disclosed ranges of Yamashita in view of Long including the instantly claimed because Yamashita in view of Long discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
Claims 1-9 and 18-20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 2010/0116376 A1 to Huang et al.
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Huang discloses a lead-free solder alloy comprising the following composition (Huang, abstract, para [0010-0020]), which overlaps the instantly claimed composition:
Element
Claim 1
Claim 18
Huang wt%
Overlaps?
Ag
3.0-5.0
3.5-5
1-4.5
Yes
Bi
2.5-5.0
2-5
Zn+Bi+In: 0-3
Yes
Cu
0.3-2
0.3-2
0.3-1
Yes
Ni
0.01-1
-
0-1
Yes
Ge
0.005-1
-
0-0.5
Yes
In
-
0.01-3.5
Zn+Bi+In: 0-3
Yes
Sn
Balance
Balance
Balance
Yes
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select any portion of the disclosed ranges of Huang including the instantly claimed because Huang discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
Regarding the instantly claimed limitation of “antimony-free,” antimony is an optional element which need not be present in the alloy of Huang.
Regarding claims 2-6, 19 and 20, the alloy of Huang overlaps the instantly claimed ranges.
Additionally regarding “consisting essentially of” in instant claim 6, the alloy of Huang need not contain any additional unrecited elements.
Regarding claim 7, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01 [R-3].) In the instant case, the alloy of Huang would be expected to have the same or similar properties as the instantly claimed alloy within the overlapping composition ranges because the alloys would have the same composition.
Regarding claim 8, the solder of Huang is in the form of a paste (Huang, para [0071]).
Regarding claim 9, the solder of Huang is used for soldering, e.g. forming soldered joints.
Claims 11-17 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 2010/0116376 A1 to Huang et al as applied to claims 1-9 and 18-20 above and further in view of CN 101100735A to Long et al (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes).
Huang discloses a solder alloy as set forth above. Huang differs from instant claims 11-17 in that Huang is silent as to the presence of rare earth metals in the alloy.
Long discloses that 0-1% of cerium, lanthanum and rare earth elements, overlapping the instantly claimed ranges of instant claims 11-17, may be added in amount of to a solder alloy of similar composition to the alloy of Huang in order to increase the strength and creep resistance of the alloy (Long, para [0011, 0019]).
Regarding claims 11-17, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add 0-1% of cerium, lanthanum and rare earth elements to the alloy of Huang as suggested by Long. The motivation for doing so would be to increase the strength and creep resistance of the alloy (Long, para [0011, 0019]). Regarding the overlapping ranges, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select any portion of the disclosed ranges of Huang in view of Long including the instantly claimed because Huang in view of Long discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
Claims 13, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over CN 101100735A to Long et al (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes).
Regarding claims 13, 14 and 16 Long discloses a lead-free solder alloy comprising the following composition (Long, abstract, para [0006, 0011]), which overlaps the instantly claimed composition:
Element
Claimed 13 wt%
Claim 16
Long wt%
Overlaps?
Ag
3.0-5.0
3.5-5
0-8
Yes
Bi
2.5-5.0
2-5
0-5
Yes
Cu
0.3-2
0.3-2
0.1-9
Yes
Ni
0.03-1
0.03-1
0.1-5
Yes
REM
Ce: 0.005-1
At least one of
Ce: 0.01-0.2
La: 0.01-0.08
Nd: 0.01-0.08
0-1 Ce, La, REM
Yes
Sn
Balance
78-97
Yes
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select any portion of the disclosed ranges of Long including the instantly claimed because Long discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
Regarding the limitation “antimony-free,” antimony is an optional element which need not be present in the alloy of Long.
Claims 1-9, 11, 12, 15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over CN 101100735A to Long et al (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes) as applied to claims 13, 14 and 16 above and further in view of US 2010/0307823 A1 to Kawamata et al.
Long discloses a solder alloy as set forth above. Long differs from instant claims 1-9, 11, 12, 15, 17 and 20 in that Long is silent as to the presence of germanium and Huang differs from instant claims 18-20 in that Long is silent as to the presence of indium.
Kawamata ‘823 discloses that for a solder alloy of similar composition to that of Long, 0.0002-0.02 wt% of Ge, overlapping the instantly claimed ranges of instant claims 1-9, 11, 12, 15, 17 and 20, may be added in order to prevent oxidation of solder and suppress discoloration (Kawamata ‘823, para [0079]) and 3-5.5 wt% In, overlapping the instantly claimed ranges of instant claims 1-9, 11, 12, 15, 17 and 20, may be added in order to obtain a solid solution strengthening effect (Kawamata ‘823, para [0051-0056]).
Regarding claims 1-9, 11, 12, 15 and 17-20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add 0.0002-0.02 wt% Ge and 3-5.5 wt% In to the alloy of Long as suggested by Kawamata ‘823. The motivation for doing so would be to prevent oxidation of solder and suppress discoloration (Kawamata ‘823, para [0079]) and obtain a solid solution strengthening effect (Kawamata ‘823, para [0051-0056]). Regarding the overlapping ranges, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select any portion of the disclosed ranges of Long in view of Kawamata ‘823 including the instantly claimed because Long in view of Kawamata ‘823 discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
Additionally regarding claim 6, regarding the instantly claimed limitation of “consisting essentially of,” the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of” limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps “and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)” of the claimed invention. For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, “consisting essentially of” will be construed as equivalent to “comprising.” If an applicant contends that additional steps or materials in the prior art are excluded by the recitation of “consisting essentially of,” applicant has the burden of showing that the introduction of additional steps or components would materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of applicant’s invention (see MPEP 2111.03 [R-3]). In the instant case, there is no clear indication in the instant specification or instant claims that Long in view of Kawamata ‘823 contains any additional materials that materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of applicant's invention.
Regarding claim 7, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01 [R-3].) In the instant case, the alloy of Long in view of Kawamata ‘823 would be expected to have the same or similar properties as the instantly claimed alloy within the overlapping composition ranges because the alloys would have the same composition.
Additionally regarding claim 8, the solder alloy of Long may be cast into a pre-formed solder piece (Long, para [0021]).
Additionally regarding claim 9, the solder of Long is used for soldering, e.g. forming soldered joints.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN 1570166 A to Deng discloses a solder alloy relevant to the instant claims (Deng, para [0008-0013]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN D WALCK whose telephone number is (571)270-5905. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 AM - 6:30 PM.
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.
/BRIAN D WALCK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights