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 .
In their response dated 12/10/2025 the applicants amended claim 1 to include content of polyphenylene ether compound to be in a range of 50-80 parts by weight of the composition. The applicants also amended claims to require the elastomer content to be 15-40 parts with respect to 100 parts of the composition. The limitation of 5-40 parts was previously required by claim 6, however narrower range necessitates new grounds of rejection. Support for applicants amendment was found in [0077] and [0081] in the specification as printed in the PG PUB 2023/0323105. Consequently new prior art will be applied.
Applicant’s arguments were directed to teachings of Zhe and its lack of the required amounts of both PPE and elastomer in newly amended claims. The applicants are correct. Arguments are however considered moot because the prior art of Zhe is withdrawn to make new grounds of rejection.
Second argument directed at the teachings of Lie are also considered moot because primary reference is different and it will require PTFE to be added in a suspension/emulsion where the presence of surfactant is required.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US 2007/0060677) in view of Daisuke (EP 1 997 840).
With respect to claims 1, 2 and 10, Yoshida discloses molding composition comprising phenylene ether as component A, butadiene modified polystyrene or HIPS as component B [0050, 0146] and PTFE in form of particles [0079] having particle size of 1 micron or less. PTFE is utilized in amount of 0.1-5 parts by weight.
With respect to the amounts, the specification of Yoshida teaches ratio of PPE to elastomer where PPE is utilized in 50-95 parts and elastomer is utilized in 5-50 parts [0082]. Additionally looking at examples (see Examples 8-11) total amount of PPE is 60 parts, and total amount of HIPS and GPPS impact modifiers is 40parts. As such examples 8-11 meet the required content of the PPE and elastomer. Examples 12-16 disclose 65 parts of PPE and total impact modifier between 21-24 parts. Examples 12-16 also meet newly added claimed amounts of PPE and elastomer.
With respect to structure of PPE, wherein R3 can be a single bond, R1 and R2 can be methyl, preferred polymer of Yoshida is poly(2,6-dimethyl-1,4-polyphenylene ether) having following structure, wherein X is also a phenyl ring. PPE of Yoshida can be further polymerized because the end group is an OH group, but only one end of the PPE.
The difference between PPE of Yoshida and the PPE of the instant invention is presence of polymerizable group at both ends of the PPE.
Daisuke discloses PPE having following structure [0010-0013, 0023-0025]:
PNG
media_image1.png
84
388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein
PNG
media_image2.png
104
336
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
114
380
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Wherein A is divalent hydrocarbon having 20 carbon atoms or less. Examples of A are compounds based on phenol which is an aryl ring [0029], wherein basic term aryl is viewed broadly to encompass substituted phenyl ring. Therefore definition of A meets the definition of X where X is substituted phenol and therefor limitation of claim 2 is met.
Composition of Yoshida has excellent properties which include stability to high temperature residence, resistance to heat exposure, low temperature impact resistance and resistance to heat deterioration. Composition of Yoshida can be utilized in parts for electrical components. Use of phosphazene compounds also imparts flame retardance.
Daisuke discloses composition which has low dielectric constant, high heat resistance, excellent mechanical properties, chemical properties and flame retardance. Composition of Daisuke can be molded into a film and finds its use inf electronic materials such as printed wiring boards, semiconductors and insulators [0001].
It is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine two ingredients, each of which is targeted by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. In re Linder 457 F,2d 506,509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972).
The combination of two compositions, each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to for a third composition that is to be used for the very same purpose may be prima facie obvious. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445, 169
In the light of the above disclosure it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize PPE of Daisuke in the composition of Yoshida. Such modification would still result in polymerizable PPE and provide compositions that can be molded for use in electronic industry.
With respect to claim 3, based on the figure I of Daisuke, the end groups are alkenyl groups (see figure I above).
With respect to claims 4 and 5, Yoshida teaches elastomer which is high impact polystyrene modified with polybutadiene rubber. As such the polymer is styrene polymer modified with polybutadiene block (see claim 1 of Yoshida). In his specification further discloses other elastomers and they include styrene-butadiene block copolymer, styrene-isoprene block copolymers, as well as their hydrogenated analogs [0096], wherein term block copolymer is defined by Yoshida as comprising two or more blocks [0097].
With respect to claims 8 and 15, as it was mentioned above PTFE has particle size of 1 micron or less [0079] and it is utilized in form of emulsion. PTFE is tetrafluoroethylene homopolymer.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US 2007/0060677) in view of Daisuke (EP 1 997 840) as applied to claims 1-5, 8, 10 and 15 above, and further in view of Lin (CN 10766367).
Discussion of Yoshida and Daisuke from paragraph 1 of this office action is incorporated here by reference.
As it was disclosed in paragraph 1 above Yoshida discloses composition for electronic components comprising polytetrafluoroethylene polymer. However, Yoshida does not disclose copolymer of instant claim 7 having following structure:
PNG
media_image4.png
198
450
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Lin discloses composition having low dielectric for use in electronic parts just like the it is done in the teachings of Yoshida. The composition comprises PTFE polymer wherein PTFE particulates are in form of emulsion, along of PPE and rubber which are also components of Yoshida.
With respect to claim 7, PTFE polymer is defined by Lin as a micro-powder [0017] and is prepared by polymerization of TFE monomer and comonomers. Comonomers include perfluorovinyl ethers. Preferred comonomer is perfluoro (propyl vinyl) ether wherein Rf has 3 carbon atoms, and content of PPVE is less than 3% [0021].
In the light of the above disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed, to utilize copolymer of Lin in the composition of Yoshida. Addition of comonomer such as PPVE is shown to improve properties of the composition such as film forming, and electronic industry does use coatings [0021]. Additionally adding PPVE is known to improve mechanical properties, lower chemical permeation and improve electrical insulation.
Yoshida as disclosed above teaches addition of PTFE to the PPE in form of emulsion, however Yoshida fails to identify best suitable surfactants to make such emulsion.
With respect to claim 9, Lin similarly with Yoshida teaches use of PTFE polymers is added in form of emulsion [0005]. The emulsion utilizes surfactant which reduce the surface tension of the resin composition [0011] and helps the micro-powder of PTFE polymer to be evenly dispersed in the resin composition. The surfactant used is a non-ionic fluorine based surfactant as preferred embodiment as evidenced by the examples.
In the light of the above disclosure, where Yoshida discloses addition of PTFE in form of emulsion, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize fluorinated non-ionic surfactant of Lin to make the emulsion of Yoshida. As shown in Lin, such surfactant lowers the surface tension of the composition in order to allow uniform distribution of the PTFE polymer throughout PPE composition.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATARZYNA I KOLB whose telephone number is (571)272-1127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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 at 5712701046. 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.
/KATARZYNA I KOLB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767 January 8, 2025