DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Regarding Claim 4, the language “, the tack change rate from the same bonding sheet except for not containing the fluxing agent.” is considered indefinite as it is unclear if the rates are being compared to each other or not.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebe et al. (US20130277092A1) in view of Kenzo (JP2014197675A).
Regarding Claims 1-2, Ebe teaches a bonding (joining) sheet (abstract) comprising a matrix resin; solder particles; and a fluxing agent of carboxylic acid(abstract) where Santacid H is an exemplary carboxylic acid [0067, 0112] (melting point around 160 C) which is considered a solid at 25 C (reading on Claim 2) the blocked carboxylic acid is considered to serve as a fluxing agent (see [0024]);
Ebe is silent regarding the surface roughness Sa of the sheet, however, Kenzo teaches a method of forming a conductive solder joint [0002] of a curable resin composition [0028]; and teaches that for the purpose of preventing misalignment of the surfaces to be joined [0027] where the film has a surface roughness Ra (a two-dimensional surface roughness measurement) of 0.03-1 microns [0067] and serves to improve slip properties and workability of the film [0072]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to ensure the bonding sheet of Ebe has a surface roughness Sa (a three-dimensional surface roughness measurement) in the claimed range of 2.5 microns or less for the purpose of improving slip properties and workability of the bonding sheet as it is interpreted a minimization of Sa roughness would similarly reduce Ra surface roughness on the scale of microns as claimed.
Regarding Claim 3, Ebe teaches a thickness of 10-200 microns [0086] overlapping with the claimed range of 30 microns of less. (See MPEP 2144.05(I))
Regarding Claim 4, while the prior art references are silent rearding tack testing or a tack change rate as claimed; nor compares between a fluxing agent sheet and a fluxing agent-free sheet, however, the prior art Table does not suggest the criticality of composition or fluxing agent used for to achieved the claimed tack change rate, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the prior art product to have similar tack change rate properties as claimed under the expectation that similar products have similar properties. (See MPEP 2112.01(I))
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICARDO D MORALES whose telephone number is (571)272-6691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9 am- 4 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 5712726297. 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.
/RICARDO D MORALES/Examiner, Art Unit 1738