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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 3-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano et al. (JP 2015-123491 – machine translation) in view of Yamashita et al. (US 6,156,132 – cited by applicant).
Considering claim 1, Nakano teaches a solder composition (abstract) for use with electronic devices (Paragraph 2). The composition comprises a flux and solder powder (Paragraph 11) in a paste (Paragraph 36). The solder may be a lead-free solder powder comprised of Sn, Bi, etc. (Paragraph 27). The flux comprises a rosin, a solvent, and activator, and an antioxidant (Paragraph 12) as well as a thixotropic agent (Paragraph 25). The activator may be one or more of an organic acid, etc. (Paragraph 17) and the antioxidation includes imidazole compounds (Paragraph 22). The organic acid comprises individually or in combination mono- and di-carboxylic acids of succinic, glutaric, adipic, etc. (Paragraph 17). The imidazole compound includes 2-ethylimidazole, 2-methylimidazole, 2-ethyl-4-methylimidazole, etc. (e.g. compounds having 3-6 carbon atoms) (Paragraph 22). However, Nakano does not teach the claimed solder alloy.
In a related field of endeavor, Yamashita teaches lead-free solder alloys (abstract) used to form solder joints for electronic equipment (Column 1 lines 13-16). The solder has a low melting point and good ductility (Column 2 lines 10-13) and comprises by weight Bi: 30-58%, Ge: 0.1% or less, balance Sn (Column 2 lines 14-20; Claim 1). The alloy may optionally contain Ag: 5% or less, Sb: 5% or less, Ni: 0.2% or less, Cu: 1% or less (Column 3 lines 19-29). The alloys are demonstrated to have solid phase temperatures (e.g. solidus temperatures) of 136-140 °C (Column 5 table). The alloy is taught to be low-fusing and having good ductility, heat resistance, and wettability (Column 3 lines 29-33).
As both Nakano and Yamashita teach lead-free solders for joining electronics they are considered analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Nakano with the solder composition taught by Yamashita as the alloy is known to be low-fusing and have good ductility, heat resistance, and wettability and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Further, the composition taught by modified Nakano 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 claims 3 and 6, Nakano teaches where the organic acid comprises individually or in combination succinic, glutaric, adipic, etc. (Paragraph 17) in a total amount of 1-10% by mass of the flux (Paragraph 19). See MPEP 2144.05
Considering claims 4-5 and 7, Nakano teaches where the solder composition forms a joint of an electronic component of a device (Paragraph 30).
Considering claim 8, Nakano teaches where the imidazole compound includes 2-ethylimidazole, 2-methylimidazole, 2-ethyl-4-methylimidazole, etc. (Paragraph 22).
Considering claim 9, Nakano taches where the imidazole compound is present in an amount of 0.1-5% by mass of the flux (Paragraph 23). See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 10, Nakano teaches where the rosin is one or more of gum rosin, wood rosin, etc. (Paragraph 14).
Considering claim 11, Nakano teaches where the rosin is present in 30-70% by mass of the flux (Paragraph 16). See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 12, Nakano teaches where the solvent is present in 10-50% by mass of the flux (Paragraph 21).
Considering claim 13, Nakano teaches where the thixotropic agent is present in 2-6% by mass of the flux (Paragraph 26). See MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, p.6, 1st section, filed 19 May 2026, with respect to double patenting rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1, 4-5, and 7 has been withdrawn. Applicant has amended the claims such that they are distinct of US 11,839,937.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks p.6, 2nd section, filed 19 May 2026, with respect to 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 3 has been withdrawn. Applicant has amended the claim to remove indefiniteness.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks pp.6-7, 3rd section, filed 19 May 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 3-7 under 35 USC 103 in view of Arzadon have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended the claims to preclude the required material of methylsuccinate disclosed by Arzadon. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nakano and Yamashita as outlined above.
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 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
Prosecution Insights