DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 23-25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2016/0297967).
Regarding claim 1: Jung et al. teaches a dielectric film forming composition (title, para. 96) comprising a cyanate ester compound (abstract) comprising at least two cyanate groups (para. 41), a polyimide polymer (para. 84) which would be either fully imidized, or if more imidization is possible, would then be a polyimide precursor, i.e. able to form a polyimide. Jung et al. also teaches a bisphenol epoxy resin (abstract), which is a reactive functional component in addition to the cyanate ester compound and the dielectric polymer wherein at the at least one reactive functional component comprises a crosslinker/curing agent (abstract) for forming a dielectric film from the dielectric film forming composition.
While Jung et al. teaches other alternative resin embodiments for the polyimide polymer, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the polyimide resin and would have been motivated to do so since Jung et al. teaches it is an acceptable resin to impart appropriate flexibility to the composition.
Regarding claims 2, 3, and 5: Jung et al. teaches
PNG
media_image1.png
190
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(para. 41), which is the claimed structures where m is 2, A comprises an organic aromatic group, and X is the first claimed drawn structure of claim 3, and is 1,3-bis(4-cyanatophenyl-1-(1-methylethylidine))benzene.
Regarding claim 6: Jung et al. teaches that the cyanate ester may be used without particular limitation on the structure (para. 39), meaning a mixture of cyanate esters can be used.
Regarding claim 7: Jung et al. teaches 5 to 35 parts by weight of the cyanate ester resin (para. 67), which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 9: Jung et al. teaches a solvent (para. 90).
Regarding claim 11: Jung et al. teaches the epoxy resin has at least two functional groups (para. 30).
Regarding claim 12: Jung et al. teaches the epoxy resin in an amount of 5 to 25 parts by weight (para. 67), which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 13: Jung et al. teaches a catalyst (para. 43).
Regarding claim 15: Jung et al. teaches a dry film comprising a substrate and the film of the composition (para. 98).
Regarding claims 23 and 25: Jung et al. teaches the ability of the composition to form an interpenetrating network by curing/crosslinking (para. 87).
Regarding claim 24: Jung et al. teaches the composition as set forth above. The claim limitation uses the words “can form”, which indicates intended use of the composition, for instance the composition is capable of these limitations. Since the claimed components are present, the composition “can be” formulated to have a glass transition temperature above 260 °C, such as by adding a higher glass transition temperature resin to the mixture.
Regarding claim 27: Jung et al. teaches an epoxy resin (abstract), which comprises functional groups for reacting with another molecule of the reactive functional compound/epoxy resin to homopolymerize.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2016/0297967) as applied to claim 1 set forth above and in view of Kern et al., “Polymers with Pendant Cyanate Ester Groups: Synthesis, Thermal Curing and Photocrosslinking”, European Polymer Journal, Vol. 34, Issue 7, 1998.
Regarding claim 4: Jung et al. teaches the basic claimed composition as set forth above. Not disclosed is the cyanate ester compound of structure (III). However, Kern et al. teaches a polymer made of 4-vinylphenyl cyanate monomers (abstract), which would result in a polymer were n1 is at least 2. Jung et al. and Kern et al. are analogous art since they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely cyanate esters for electronics. At the time of the invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the cyanate ester of Kern et al. in the composition of Jung et al. and would have been motivated to do so if curing via irradiation with 254 nm UV light is desired.
Claims 8, 10, 14, and 16-19 are ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2016/0297967) as applied to claims 1, 9, and 13 and in view of Cooray (US 2002/0131247).
Regarding claim 8: Jung et al. teaches the basic claimed composition as set forth above. Not disclosed is the amount of the polyimide. However, Cooray teaches 32 grams polyimide in the composition that has 84 total grams (example 8, para. 62). This is 38 wt% polyimide, which overlaps 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 (MPEP 2144.05 I). Jung et al. and Jung et al. are analogous art since they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely cyanate ester resin compositions. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the overlapping amount of polyimide in Cooray in the composition of Jung et al. and would have been motivated to do so to control the flexibility of the composition.
Regarding claim 10: Jung et al. teaches the basic claimed composition as set forth above. Not disclosed is the amount of solvent. However, Cooray teaches 40 ml of the solvent 1,3-dimethyl-2-imidazolidinone, which has a density of 1.056 g/ml, meaning there is 40x1.056=42 g solvent (para. 62). This converts to 42/84 = 50 wt% of the solvent. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the overlapping amount of solvent of Cooray in the composition of Jung et al. and would have been motivated to do so to balance the workability of the composition.
Regarding claim 14: Jung et al. teaches the basic claimed composition as set forth above. Not disclosed is the amount of catalyst. However, Cooray teaches between 100 parts catalyst per 1 million parts resin system (para. 34), which converts to 0.01 wt% to 3 parts catalyst per 84 parts resin system (para. 62), which converts to 3.6 wt%. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the overlapping amount of catalyst in Jung et al. in the composition of Cooray and would have been motivated to do so to achieve the desired reaction speed.
Regarding claims 16, 18 and 19: Jung et al. teaches the basic claimed composition as set forth above. Not disclosed explicitly is the claimed process. However, Cooray teaches a process for depositing a metal layer comprising depositing the composition on a substrate (para. 37), exposing to heat (para. 37), the film is patterned with openings/via holes are created (para. 37) and depositing a metal layer in at least one opening/via hole (para. 38). Cooray also teaches a three-dimensional object (fig. 1) and the dielectric film in two stacks (fig. 1, reference number 3 is on either side of the core). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to perform the process of Cooray with the composition of Jung et al. and would have been motivated to do so to form a printed wiring board.
Regarding claim 17: Jung et al. teaches the basic claimed composition as set forth above. Not disclosed explicitly is the claimed process. However, Cooray teaches a process of forming a dielectric film/layer on a substrate/circuit board (para. 37) comprising providing a substrate with copper metal wire structures that form a network of lines and interconnects on the substrate/Cu-wiring fine-patterned circuit board (para.37), depositing the composition to form a dielectric film/layer (para. 37) and exposing the film to heat (para. 37). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to perform the process of Cooray with the composition of Jung et al. and would have been motivated to do so to form a printed wiring board.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2016/0297967) as applied to claim 1 set forth above in view of Ibbitson et al. (US 2005/0112369).
Regarding claims 20 and 21: Jung et al. teaches the basic claimed composition as set forth above. Not disclosed is a copper passivation reagent that is a triazole or a tetrazole. However, Ibbitson et al. teaches a similar composition comprising benzotriazole (para. 37) in an amount of 0.5-99 wt% (para. 35). Jung et al. and Ibbitson et al. are analogous art since they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely dielectric materials. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add the triazole of Ibbitson et al. to the composition of Jung et al. and would have been motivated to do so since Ibbitson et al. teaches it is a corrosion inhibitor (para. 6).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2016/0297967) as applied to claim 13 set forth above and in view of Das et al. (U.S. Pat. 9,873,761).
Regarding claim 22: Jung et al. teaches the basic claimed composition as set forth above. Not disclosed is the photoinitiator. However, Das et al. teaches a similar composition comprising a photoinitiator (abstract). Jung et al. and Das et al. are analogous art since they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely low dielectric materials. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the photo initiator of Das et al. in the composition of Jung et al. and would have been motivated to do so that the composition is capable of curing with irradiation.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2016/0297967) as applied to claim 15 set forth above and in view of Meier et al. (US 2017/0002147).
Regarding claim 26: Jung et al. teaches the basic claimed composition as set forth above. Not disclosed is the glass transition temperature claimed. However, Meier et al. teaches a similar composition with a glass transition temperature of 290 to 340 °C (para. 122). Jung et al. and Meier et al. are analogous art since they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely cyanate ester compositions. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to formulate the composition of Jung et al. with the glass transition temperature of Meier et al. and would have been motivated to do so since both references teach the importance of high glass transition temperatures.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Megan McCulley whose telephone number is (571)270-3292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached on 571-272-1197. 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.
/MEGAN MCCULLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights