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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yokokouji et al. (JP-S58-77791A) (hereafter Yokokouji).
With respect to claim 1, Yokokouji teaches a flux (title) comprising: a rosin (disclosed rosins) (machine translation); an organic acid (palmitic or stearic acid or monohydric carboxylic acid) (machine translation); and a solvent (S) (alcohol/isopropyl) (machine translation and constitution), wherein the organic acid includes a monocarboxylic acid (A1) (palmitic or stearic acid) and having a melting point of 35°C or higher and 90°C or lower, and the solvent (S) includes a solvent (S1) having a boiling point of 100°C or lower (machine translation).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (CN-102059479A) (hereafter Yang).
With respect to claim 1, Yang teaches a flux (title) comprising: a rosin (rosin) (machine translation); an organic acid (palmitate) (machine translation); and a solvent (S) (ethyl/anhydrous alcohol) (machine translation and constitution), wherein the organic acid includes a monocarboxylic acid (A1) (palmitate) and having a melting point of 35°C or higher and 90°C or lower, and the solvent (S) includes a solvent (S1) having a boiling point of 100°C or lower (machine translation).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang Hagiwara et al. (WO2016/135938A1) (hereafter Hagiwara).
With respect to claim 1, Hagiwara teaches a flux (title) comprising: a rosin (rosin) (machine translation); an organic acid (palmitic or stearic acid) (machine translation); and a solvent (S) (1-butanol) (machine translation and constitution), wherein the organic acid includes a monocarboxylic acid (A1) (palmitic or stearic acid) and having a melting point of 35°C or higher and 90°C or lower, and the solvent (S) includes a solvent (S1) having a boiling point of 100°C or lower (machine translation).
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP-7239865B1 (hereafter JP ‘865).
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
With respect to claim 1, JP ‘865 teaches a flux (title) comprising: a rosin (disclosed rosins) (machine translation); an organic acid (machine translation); and a solvent (S) (machine translation), wherein the organic acid includes a monocarboxylic acid (A1) and having a melting point of 35°C or higher and 90°C or lower, and the solvent (S) includes a solvent (S1) having a boiling point of 100°C or lower (machine translation).
With respect to claim 2, JP ‘865 teaches wherein the monocarboxylic acid (A1) has a molecular weight of 180 or greater and 350 or less (machine translation).
With respect to claim 3, JP ‘865 teaches wherein a content of the solvent (S1) is 65% by mass or greater with respect to a total mass of the solvent (S) (machine translation).
With respect to claim 4, JP ‘865 teaches an alkanolamine in a flux (machine translation).
With respect to claim 5, JP ‘865 teaches wherein a content of the monocarboxylic acid (A1) is 0.5% by mass or greater and 20% by mass or less with respect to a total mass of the flux (machine translation).
With respect to claim 6, JP ‘865 teaches wherein the monocarboxylic acid (A1) includes palmitic acid, and a content of the palmitic acid is 60% by mass or greater with respect to a total mass of the monocarboxylic acid (A1) (machine translation).
With respect to claim 7, JP ‘865 teaches wherein a content of the rosin is 10% by mass or greater and 50% by mass or less with respect to a total mass of the flux (machine translation).
With respect to claim 8, JP ‘865 teaches a method for producing a bonded object in which a die and a lid are bonded to each other through a thermal interface material (TIM), wherein the TIM is an indium sheet, and the bonding is performed by a reflow method with the flux according to Claim 1 being sandwiched between at least one of the TIM and the die or the TIM and the lid (machine translation).
With respect to claim 9, JP ‘865 teaches wherein the bonding is performed by the reflow method at a temperature of 200°C (machine translation).
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) 2-3 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokokouji
With respect to claim 2, Yokokouji teaches wherein the monocarboxylic acid (A1) has a molecular weight of 180 or greater and 350 or less (machine translation).
With respect to claim 3, Yokokouji teaches wherein a content of the solvent (S1) is 65% by mass or greater with respect to a total mass of the solvent (S) (machine translation).
With respect to claim 5, Yokokouji teaches wherein a content of the monocarboxylic acid (A1) is 0.5% by mass or greater and 20% by mass or less with respect to a total mass of the flux (machine translation).
With respect to claim 6, Yokokouji teaches wherein the monocarboxylic acid (A1) includes palmitic acid, and a content of the palmitic acid is 60% by mass or greater with respect to a total mass of the monocarboxylic acid (A1) (machine translation).
With respect to claim 7, Yokokouji teaches wherein a content of the rosin is 10% by mass or greater and 50% by mass or less with respect to a total mass of the flux (machine translation).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang
With respect to claim 2, Yang teaches wherein the monocarboxylic acid (A1) has a molecular weight of 180 or greater and 350 or less (machine translation).
With respect to claim 3, Yang teaches wherein a content of the solvent (S1) is 65% by mass or greater with respect to a total mass of the solvent (S) (machine translation).
With respect to claim 5, Yang teaches wherein a content of the monocarboxylic acid (A1) is 0.5% by mass or greater and 20% by mass or less with respect to a total mass of the flux (machine translation).
With respect to claim 6, Yang teaches wherein the monocarboxylic acid (A1) includes palmitic acid, and a content of the palmitic acid is 60% by mass or greater with respect to a total mass of the monocarboxylic acid (A1) (machine translation).
With respect to claim 7, Yang teaches wherein a content of the rosin is 10% by mass or greater and 50% by mass or less with respect to a total mass of the flux (machine translation).
Claim(s) 2-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagiwara et al. (WO2016/135938A1) (hereafter Hagiwara).
With respect to claim 2, Hagiwara teaches wherein the monocarboxylic acid (A1) has a molecular weight of 180 or greater and 350 or less (machine translation).
With respect to claim 3, Hagiwara teaches wherein a content of the solvent (S1) is 65% by mass or greater with respect to a total mass of the solvent (S) (machine translation).
With respect to claim 4, Hagiwara teaches an alkanolamine in a flux (machine translation).
With respect to claim 5, Hagiwara teaches wherein a content of the monocarboxylic acid (A1) is 0.5% by mass or greater and 20% by mass or less with respect to a total mass of the flux (machine translation).
With respect to claim 6, Hagiwara teaches wherein the monocarboxylic acid (A1) includes palmitic acid, and a content of the palmitic acid is 60% by mass or greater with respect to a total mass of the monocarboxylic acid (A1) (machine translation).
With respect to claim 7, Hagiwara teaches wherein a content of the rosin is 10% by mass or greater and 50% by mass or less with respect to a total mass of the flux (machine translation).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokokouji or Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamasaki et al. (CN-107249812A) (hereafter Yamasaki).
With respect to claim 4, Yokokouji or Yang do not teach an alkanolamine.
However, Yamasaki teaches an alkanolamine in a flux (machine translation).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the alkanolamine of Yamasaki in the flux of Yokokouji or Yang in order to enhance solubility and/or improve solderability.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokokouji or Yang or Hagiwara as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hsiao et al. (TW-201501257A) (hereafter Hsiao).
With respect to claim 8, Yokokouji or Yang or Hagiwara does not teach a method for producing a bonded object in which a die and a lid are bonded to each other through a thermal interface material (TIM), wherein the TIM is an indium sheet, and the bonding is performed by a reflow method with the flux according to Claim 1 being sandwiched between at least one of the TIM and the die or the TIM and the lid.
However, Hsiao teaches a method for producing a bonded object in which a die (14) and a lid (12) are bonded to each other through a thermal interface material (TIM) (18), wherein the TIM is an indium sheet, and the bonding is performed by a reflow method with the flux (164/183) according to Claim 1 being sandwiched between at least one of the TIM (18) and the die (14) or the TIM (18) and the lid (12) (machine translation).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the flux of Yokokouji or Yang or Harigawa in the bonding process of Hsiao in order to form the desired electronic assembly with excellent soldering and less defects using an environment-friendly flux.
With respect to claim 9, Hsiao teaches wherein the bonding is performed by the reflow method at a temperature of 200°C (machine translation), but does not explicitly teach a temperature of lower than 200°C. However, it is the examiner position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to heat slightly less than the 200°C taught by Hsiao in order to prevent thermal degradation of the electronic component(s) while still providing enough heat to reflow the TIM.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KILEY SHAWN STONER whose telephone number is (571)272-1183. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday.
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 Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KILEY S STONER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
