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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-2 and 11-18 are pending wherein claims 1-2 and 11-14 are currently under examination and claims 15-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected method for connecting an electronic component and claims 17-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected method for connecting an electronic component. Applicant’s election of claims 1, 2 and 11-14 was made without traverse in the Response filed on July 22, 2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maierson (US 3,703,254).
In regard to claim 1, Maierson (‘254) discloses flux coated solder particles (paste) wherein 5 to 50 weight percent would be flux material and 50 to 95 weight percent would be the solder alloy and wherein the size of the solder particles (powder) would be from about 10 to 500 micrometers (Figures and column 4, line 60 to column 5, line 45). The Examiner notes that the amounts of solder particles (powder), flux and particle size disclosed by Maierson (‘254) overlap the amounts of the instant invention, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to select the claimed amounts of solder particles (powder), flux content and particle (powder) size from the amounts disclosed by Maierson (‘254) because Maierson (‘254) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
In regard to claim 11, Maierson (‘254) discloses wherein the base of the solder alloy would tin (Example 1, column 6).
In regard to claim 12, Maierson (‘254) discloses substantially similar compositions and therefore this property would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 13-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regard to claim 2, neither Maierson (‘254) nor the remainder of the prior art disclose or adequately suggest a solder past consisting of 40 to 60 weight percent powder with a particle size of 2 to 25 micrometers and 40 to 60 weight percent of flux wherein the flux consists of 50 to 60 weight percent of at least one natural resin or modified natural resin, 15 to 30 weight percent of at least one organic solvent, 5 to 15 weight percent of at least one thickener, 5 to 10 weight percent of at least one activator and 0 to 10 weight percent of at least one additive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takeuchi et al. (JP ‘250) discloses a flux for solder paste having a rosin resin, solvent, activator, thickener and additive and also a fatty acid ester of a polysaccharide as the thickener being 0.1 to 5 weight percent of the flux.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessee Roe whose telephone number is (571)272-5938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7:30 am to 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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights