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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,839,937. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim 1 recites a paste of a solder powder of an alloy and flux where the alloy consists by mass(i) Bi: 32-40%, Sb: 0.1-1.0%, Cu: 0.1-1.0%, Ni: 0.001-0.1%, Ag: 0-3%, Fe: 0-0.1%, Co: 0-0.1%, Ga, Mn, and V each: 0-0.01%, P: 0-0.1%, Ge: 0-0.1%, Sn: remainder and impurities, etc.. This is patentably indistinct of claim 1 of the ‘937 patent which recites Bi: 32-40%, Sb: 0.1-1.0%, Cu: 0.1-1.0%, Ni: 0.001-0.1%, Ag: 0.3% or less, Fe and/or Co: 0.001-0.1%, at least one of Ga, Mn, V, P, and Ge and V each: 0.001-0.01%, and Sn: remainder and impurities.
The instant claims and those of the ‘937 patent recite overlapping lead-free solder alloys and the courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside of those disclosed in the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Instant claims 4-5 and 7 recites a solder joint overlapping claim 9 of the ‘937 patent.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Claim 3 recites “the dicarboxylic acids” and this lacks antecedent basis as the claim also references “linear dicarboxylic acids”. This may be overcome by amending to recite “ the linear dicarboxylic acids”.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arzadon et al. (US 2003/0221748).
Considering claim 1, Arzadon teaches a solder flux and solder paste (abstract). The paste comprises a powdered solder alloy and the flux where the flux comprises a base component, a solvent component, a rheological component, an activator, and an accelerator (Paragraph 20). The solder alloy comprises Pb-free alloys including Sn42Bi58, etc. (e.g. lead-free solder alloy ii) (Paragraph 44). The base component comprises a rosin, etc. (paragraph 22). The rheological component comprises a thixotropic agent to allow for stenciling (Paragraph 36). The activating agent comprises mono- and di-carboxylic acids including linear di-carboxylic acids of succinic acid, glutaric acid, etc. (e.g. 4-5 carbon atom linear dicarboxylic acids) (Paragraph 29). The accelerating component comprises 2-methylimidazole and 2-ethylimidazole, etc. (e.g. 4-5 carbon atom imidazoles) (Paragraph 32). The accelerating compound of Arzadon is considered the claimed activator compound as they are substantially identical and a material and its properties are inseparable, absent an objective showing. See MPEP 2112.01.
While not expressly teaching a singular example of the claimed solder paste this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date in view of the teachings of Arzadon as this is considered a combination of conventionally known components known to afford a conventionally known solder paste and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. While not expressly teaching the claimed solidus temperature, Arzadon teaches a substantially identical solder alloy as that which is claimed and this is considered to be present as a material and its properties are inseparable, absent an objective showing. See MPEP 2112.01. Further, the mass of Bi and Sn taught by Arzadon overlaps that which is claimed and the courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside of those disclosed in the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 3, Arzadon teaches where the organic acid component is present in about 1-30 wt.% and preferably 2-20 wt.% overlapping that which is claimed (Paragraph 28). See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claims 4-5 and 7, Arzadon teaches where the paste is printed on a PCB and electronic devices are mounted thereon (Paragraph 50) and then paste is heated to form a solder joint (Paragraph 51) and is used with both electronic components and electronic devices (Paragraphs 4-5).
Considering claim 6, Arzadon teaches where the di-carboxylic acid comprises succinic acid, glutaric acid, etc. (Paragraph 29).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yamashita et al. (US 6,156,132), Inaba et al. (US 2019/0193211), and Mutuki et al. (US 2020/0070287) teach solder alloys similar to that which is claimed. Wetz et al. (US 2004/0084510), Shiratori et al. (US 2020/0047291), and Kawanago et al. (US 2021/0078113) teach solder pastes similar to that which is claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH DUMBRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00 AM - 3:30 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
SETH DUMBRIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/SETH DUMBRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784