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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 19 August 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14 and 15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected solder paste and method of producing a joined body, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 19 August 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09 April 2024 and 25 November 2024 were considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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 1-4, 7 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2021213570A1 of Kawano.
Regarding Claim 1, Kawano teaches a bonding material and bonding method using same in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Kawano discloses a flux containing a solvent and a high viscosity solvent consisting of 1, 2, 6-hexantriol (triol solvent (S1)), Para[0008]. Kawano also teaches that this flux also contained diethylene glycol monohexyl ether (at least one solvent selected from the group consisting of a monohydric solvent and a dihydric solvent) as the solvent in an amount of 30% by mass or more and 60% by mass or less (a content of the solvent (S2) is 50% by mass or more with respect to the total mass of the flux) in a range limited by the present invention, stearic acid amide (monoamide-based thixotropic agent) and hardened caster oil as the thixotropic agent in a total amount of 7% by mass or more and 20% by mass or less (a content of the monoamide-based thixotropic agent is 0.5% by mass or more and less than 15% by mass with respect to a total mass of the flux), Para[0057]. Kawano’s ranges for the thixotropic agent and monohydric solvent overlap with the claimed 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. Therefore, Kawano teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Kawano teaches that the content of 1, 2, 6-hexantriol (triol solvent (S1)) is 5% by mass or more and 20% by mass or less (1% by mass or more and 15% by mass or less with respect to the total mass of the flux), when the total amount of the flux is estimated at 100, Para[0023]. This range overlaps with the claimed range. 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. Therefore, Kawano teaches all limitations of claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3, Kawano discloses a flux containing a solvent and a high viscosity solvent consisting of 1, 2, 6-hexantriol (triol solvent (S1) is a triol compound in which three hydroxy groups are bonded to a chained hydrocarbon group having three to six carbon atoms), Para[0008]. Therefore, Kawano teaches all limitations of claim 3.
Regarding Claim 4, Kawano discloses a flux containing a solvent and a high viscosity solvent consisting of 1, 2, 6-hexantriol (triol solvent (S1) is at least one selected from the group consisting of 3-methylbutane-1,2,3-triol, 2-methylbutane-1,2,4-triol, 1,2,6-hexanetriol, glycerin, and 1,2,4-butanetriol), Para[0008]. Therefore, Kawano teaches all limitations of claim 4.
Regarding Claim 7, Kawano teaches that this flux also contained diethylene glycol monohexyl ether as the solvent (solvent (S2) comprises the monohydric solvent), Para[0057]. Therefore, Kawano teaches all limitations of claim 7.
Regarding Claim 9, Kawano teaches that this flux also contained diethylene glycol monohexyl ether (at least one solvent (S2) selected from the group consisting of a monohydric solvent and a dihydric solvent) as the solvent in an amount of 30% by mass or more and 60% by mass or less in a range limited by the present invention, Para[0057]. Kawano also teaches that the content of 1, 2, 6-hexantriol (triol solvent (S1)) is 5% by mass or more and 20% by mass or less, when the total amount of the flux is estimated at 100, Para[0023]. One of ordinary skill in the art could select values within the ranges taught by Kawano, such as 55% for diethylene glycol monohexyl ether and 7% for 1, 2, 6-hexantriol, resulting in a mixing ratio of 7.85 (a mixing ratio of the solvent (S2) and the triol solvent (S1) is 7 to 31 as a mass ratio represented by the solvent (S2)/the triol solvent (S1). This falls within the claimed range. 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. Therefore, Kawano teaches all limitations of claim 9.
Regarding Claim 10, Kawano teaches an aromatic amide and a fatty acid amide as the thixotropic agent (monoamide-based thixotropic agent is a combination of an aromatic amide and a fatty acid amide), Para[0027]. Therefore, Kawano teaches all limitations of claim 10.
Regarding Claim 11, Kawano discloses that the flux in each of these embodiments may include an activator (an activator), Para[0031]. Kawano also teaches that the content of the activator is 3% by mass or more and 10% by mass or less (wherein a content of the activator is more than 0% by mass and 5% by mass or less with respect to the total mass of the flux) when the total amount of the flux is estimated at 100, Para[0035]. This overlaps with the claimed range. 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. Therefore, Kawano teaches all limitations of claim 11.
Regarding Claim 12, Kawano teaches that when containing no rosin in the flux (the flux contains no rosin-based resin), the flux is available for non-flux residue use, Para[0041]. Therefore, Kawano teaches all limitations of claim 12.
Regarding Claim 13, Kawano discloses that the activator is an optional component for the flux (flux contains no activator) in each of these embodiments, Para[0035]. Therefore, Kawano teaches all limitations of claim 13.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2021213570A1 of Kawano as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of WO2015198832A1 (machine translation) of Kurita.
Regarding Claim 5, while Kawano teaches 1, 2, 6-hexantriol, Para[0008], Kawano does not disclose a triol solvent selected from the group consisting of 3-methylbutane-1,2,3-triol and 2-methylbutane-1,2,4-triol.
Kurita discloses a bonding material and bonding method using same in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Kurita teaches that in this bonding material, the viscosity of the additive is preferably 2,000 to 10,000 mPa at 20 ° C. It is preferable that the additive is 2-methylbutane-2,3,4-triol or 2-methylbutane-1,2,4-triol (triol solvent (S1) is a combination of a first triol solvent selected from the group consisting of 3-methylbutane-1,2,3-triol and 2-methylbutane-1,2,4-triol), Pg[1]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include 2-methylbutane-1,2,4-triol, as taught by Kurita, in the triol solvent of Kawano in order to achieve viscosity in the range of 2,000 to 10,000 mPa at 20 ° C. Thus, Kawano in view of Kurita teaches all limitations of claim 5.
Regarding Claim 6, while Kawano teaches 1, 2, 6-hexantriol, Para[0008], Kawano does not disclose a triol solvent selected from the group consisting of 3-methylbutane-1,2,3-triol and 2-methylbutane-1,2,4-triol or a mixing ratio of the first triol solvent and the second triol solvent.
Kurita teaches that in this bonding material, the viscosity of the additive is preferably 2,000 to 10,000 mPa at 20 ° C. It is preferable that the additive is 2-methylbutane-2,3,4-triol or 2-methylbutane-1,2,4-triol, Pg.[1]. Kurita also teaches that the amount of the additive is preferably 0.1 to 10% by mass based on the silver paste, and the amount of the solvent is preferably 5 to 25% by mass with respect to the silver paste (a mixing ratio of the first triol solvent and the second triol solvent is 1 to 10 as a mass ratio represented by the first triol solvent/the second triol solvent), Pg[1]. One of ordinary skill in the art could select within the ranges taught by Kurita, such as 5% for the 2-methylbutane-1,2,4-triol additive and 10% for the total amount of the solvent, resulting in a mixing ratio of 5% 2-methylbutane-1,2,4-triol/5% 1, 2, 6-hexantriol, or 1. This falls within the claimed range. 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. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include 2-methylbutane-1,2,4-triol, in the amount taught by Kurita, in the triol solvent of Kawano in order to achieve viscosity in the range of 2,000 to 10,000 mPa at 20 ° C. Thus, Kawano in view of Kurita teaches all limitations of claim 6.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2021213570A1 of Kawano as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of JP2021090999A (machine translation) of Kawamata.
Regarding Claim 8, Kawano does not disclose a branched aliphatic monohydric alcohol having 16 to 20 carbons.
Kawamata discloses a flux, solder paste and soldered product manufacturing method in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Kawamata discloses that the specific solvent is a branched aliphatic monohydric alcohol having 16 to 20 carbon atoms (the monohydric solvent is a branched aliphatic monohydric alcohol having 16 to 20 carbon atoms), Para[0023]. Kawamata teaches that from the viewpoint of appropriately slowing the wetting rate of the molten solder and sufficiently reducing the generation of voids, the content ratio of the specific solvent is preferably 65 to 85 wt%, Para[0025]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the branched aliphatic monohydric alcohol having 16 to 20 carbon atoms, as taught by Kawamata, in the solvent of Kawano in order to slow the wetting rate and sufficiently reduce the generation of voids. Thus, Kawano in view of Kawamata covers all limitations of claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BENJAMIN STILES whose telephone number is (571)272-0598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/JACOB BENJAMIN STILES/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/VANESSA T. LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights