DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-9 are pending, and claims 1-8 are currently under review.
Claim 9 is withdrawn.
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 I, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on 7/01/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 9 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 7/01/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duchesne et al. (US 2010/0175790).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4-5, Duchesne et al. discloses a soldering flux composition [abstract]; said flux including a fluxing agent such as levulinic acid and a solvent [abstract]. One of ordinary skill would understand that levulinic acid has a melting point of up to 35 degrees C and a boiling point of up to 246 degrees C, which meets the claimed ranges. Duchesne et al. further teaches that the solvent can include propylene glycol, which has a boiling point of approximately 188 degrees C [0029, claim6]. It would have been obvious to select propylene glycol as a solvent that is expressly taught as claimed (ie. inventive composition) by Duchesne et al.
Regarding claim 3, Duchesne et al. discloses the flux of claim 1 (see previous). Duchesne et al. further teaches that the levulinic acid is included in the total flux in an amount of 6 to 15 weight percent, which overlaps with the claimed range [0031]. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 6, Duchesne et al. discloses the flux of claim 1 (see previous). Duchesne et al. teaches the levulinic acid amount of 6 to 15 weight percent as explained above, and further teaches that the tacky solvent can be included in an amount of 50 to 80 weight percent [0031].The examiner notes that these amounts result in an overlapping ratio of tacky solvent to levulinic acid. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 8, Duchesne et al. discloses the flux of claim 1 (see previous). Duchesne et al. does not expressly teach that rosins or thermosetting resins are present, such that one of ordinary skill would understand that these components can be absent.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duchesne et al. (US 2010/0175790) in view of Zado (US 4,701,224).
Regarding claim 7, Duchesne et al. discloses the flux of claim 1 (see previous). Duchesne et al. further teaches inclusion of polyalkene glycol, which one of ordinary skill would understand to be a nonionic surfactant [0029]. However, Duchesne et al. does not expressly teach the inclusion of an amine as claimed. Zado discloses that it is known to include amine components in water soluble flux compositions to inhibit decomposition of the soldering fluid [abstract, col.3 ln.1-33]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the flux of Duchesne et al. by including an amine component for the aforementioned benefit as taught by Zado.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights