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 § 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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 2014/0299969 A1; hereafter as “Xu”) in view of Marchand (WO 2009/097560; hereafter as “Marchand”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 4, Xu teaches a polymer for the fabrication of microelectronic devices [¶ 0009], corresponding to the resin composition of Claim 1, comprising:
A polymer consisting of vinyl ester monomers [Claim 4], corresponding to the polyolefin of Claim 1;
6.9 g of a copolymer [¶ 0072], which is equivalent to 17 wt. %, corresponding to 20 parts by weight to 150 parts by weight of a copolymer, which is equivalent to 6.9-58 wt. %, said copolymer comprising:
3.4 g of styrene [¶ 0072], corresponding to a monomer of Formula (1) of Claim 1, and monomer of Formula (1-1) of Claim 4;
3.5 g of 4-vinylbenzocyclobutane [¶ 0072], corresponding to a monomer of Formula (2) of Claim 1 and monomer of Formula (2-1) of Claim 4;
Wherein the molar ratio of styrene to 4-vinylbenzocyclobutane can be adjusted to 30:70 [¶ 0031], which is equivalent to 75 wt.% 4-vinylbenzocyclobutane (MW of 4-vinylbenzocyclobutene = 130 g/mol; MW of styrene = 104 g/mol; (130*70)/( (130*70)+ (104*30)) = 75 wt. %), corresponding to the content of the structural unit formed by the monomer of Formula (2) in the copolymer is 55 wt. % to 90 wt. % of Claim 1;
Wherein the hydrogens groups of styrene [¶ 0072] read on wherein R1 – R5 are hydrogen atoms of Claim 1; and
Wherein the hydrogens groups of 4-vinylbenzocyclobutane [¶ 0072] read on wherein R6 – R9 are hydrogen atoms of Claim 1;
Xu teaches compositions including other copolymers in a polymer blend [0027].
However, Xu does not particularly teach the amount of polyolefin, corresponding to the polyolefin of Claim 1 and 10 parts by weight to 40 parts by weight of an unsaturated bond-containing crosslinking agent of Claim 1.
Nevertheless, Marchand teaches an ethylene / α-olefin block interpolymer for multilayer lamination films [Claim 1; ¶ 0148], comprising phenolic crosslinking agents [¶ 242], the ethylene corresponding to the polyolefin of Claim 1, and the phenolic crosslinking agents corresponding to the unsaturated bond-containing crosslinking agent of Claim 1.
Marchand offers the motivation the heat of fusion and crystallinity are dependent on the polyethylene content of the interpolymer [¶ 333]. Marchand also offers the motivation that the amount of gelation increases with crosslinking and amount of crosslinking agents, and the percent gel content is preferably from 5 to 100 percent [¶ 244].
Xu and Marchand are considered to be analogous art as the claimed invention, as all are in the same field of polymer compounds comprising polyolefins and vinylstyrene, and are used for the manufacture of microelectronics.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polyolefin and crosslinking agent of Marchand with the resin composition of Xu, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Furthermore, Marchand teaches the crystallinity is dependent on the polyethylene content, and the interpolymer percent gel content is dependent on the level of crosslinking in the interpolymer. Therefore, the amount of the ethylene monomer and crosslinking agent can be optimized to reach the desired crystallinity and gel content, respectively, via a routine optimization. The case law has held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.05. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to adjust the amount of ethylene and crosslinking agent for the desired crystallinity and gel content via a routine optimization, thereby obtaining the present invention.
Regarding Claim 2, however, Xu does not explicitly teach the polyolefins of Claim 2.
Nevertheless, Marchand teaches suitable polymers for blending include styrene/butadiene block copolymers [¶ 227], thereby reading on the styrene-butadiene copolymer of Claim 2.
Marchand offers the motivation that particular desirable blends comprising styrene-butadiene-styrene block copolymers.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the styrene/butadiene block copolymers of Marchand with the resin composition of Xu, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 3 and 5, Xu further teaches:
Block copolymer poly(styrene-co-4-vinylbenzocyclobutene)-b-poly(methyl methacrylate) [¶ 0075-0076], shown below, corresponding to the block copolymer of Claim 3;
PNG
media_image1.png
170
326
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A copolymer of styrene and 4-vinylbenzocyclobutane [¶ 0030-0031, 0075], thereby reading on Formula (11) of Claim 5.
Xu offers them motivation that the final block copolymer will typically have a weight average molecular weight of from about 1,000 Da to about 100,000 Dalton [¶ 0042]. Xu also offers the motivation that the final product comprising the copolymer has a thickness from about 20 nm to about 60 nm and the thickness is dependent upon the molecular weight of each polymer block [¶ 0046].
However, Xu does not explicitly teach wherein 2≤m≤44 and 12≤n≤70 of Claim 5.
Nevertheless, Xu teaches a preferred block polymer molecular weight and cured copolymer final thickness. Therefore, the amount of the repeating units of each polymer block can be optimized to reach the desired molecular weight and cured thickness, respectively, via a routine optimization. The case law has held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.05. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to adjust the number of repeating units for the desired molecular weight and cured thickness via a routine optimization, thereby obtaining the present invention.
Regarding Claims 6-8, Xu further teaches:
4-tert-butyl styrene [Claim 2], thereby reading on the t-butyl styrene of Claim 6;
Vinylbenzocyclobutane [¶ 0018], thereby reading on the polyfunctional vinyl aromatic copolymer of Claim 7; and
A solvent system [¶ 0019], thereby reading on the solvent of Claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (1) Xu is not analogous art to the claimed invention because Xu is in the field of the front-end fabrication of microelectronics, and the instantly claimed invention is in the field of back-end fabrication of microelectronics. However, Applicant is reminded that in Response to the Restriction submitted on 11/12/2025, Applicant elected Invention I, Claims 1-8 drawn to a resin composition, and withdrew Invention II, Claims 9-14 drawn to an article made from the resin composition, comprising a prepreg, a resin film, a laminate or printed circuit board. It is not appropriate to incorporate withdrawn limitations into the prosecution of the elected claims. As such, while the instantly claimed invention is relevant to the field of back-end fabrication, it is not only reasonably pertinent to the field of back-end fabrication but is at least relevant to the broader field of resin compositions as claimed. Furthermore, while the claims are interpreted in light of the Specification, it is not appropriate to incorporate limitations from the Specification into the claims. In this case, the claims are drawn to a much broader field of art than the embodiments disclosed in the Specification as Applicant argues. Since Xu similarly teaches compositions for microelectronics comprising the claimed polyolefin, and copolymer of styrene and 4-vinylbenzocyclbutane, one of ordinary skill would reasonably conclude that the teachings of Xu are from the same field as the instantly claimed invention. In addition, even if Xu discloses the polymer composition can be used for front-end fabrication, that does not mean one of ordinary skill in the field of front-end fabrication would not look to the teachings from the very closely related, and overlapping field of back-end fabrication. While the job of a line cook preparing appetizers is different from the job of the line cook preparing entrees, they nonetheless work in the same kitchen and it would be reasonable to one of ordinary skill in the kitchen to know that skills and ingredients used to prepare appetizers are useful, if not similar, as those used to prepare entrees. Thus, at least for the reasons disclosed above, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues (2) Marchand is not analogous art to the claimed invention because Marchland belongs to the polyolefin field. As disclosed in the argument above, the instantly invention is relevant to the broad field of resin compositions as claimed in Claims 1-8. Applicant remarks that Marchand is not analogous art to the claimed invention because Marchland belongs to the polyolefin field, however, since the instantly claimed invention also comprises substantially of polyolefin [instant Claims; Claim 1(a)], the claimed invention also belongs to the polyolefin field. Furthermore, Marchland discloses the block copolymers have applications to wide variety of fields, including, but not limited to, multilayer films [¶ 0235] and laminates [¶ 0237]. The instant Specification discloses the claimed invention also relates to multilayer articles [¶ 0134-0136], resin films [¶ 0001], and laminates [¶ 0001]. Furthermore, Marchand teaches an ethylene / α-olefin block interpolymer for multilayer films [Claim 1; ¶ 0148, 0235], comprising phenolic crosslinking agents [¶ 242], the ethylene corresponding to the claimed polyolefin of Claim 1, and the phenolic crosslinking agents corresponding to the claimed unsaturated bond-containing crosslinking agent of Claim 1. Thus, at least for the reasons disclosed above, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues (3) there is no motivation to combine Xu and Marchand, and the combination would not yield the claimed invention. However, Marchand teaches the heat of fusion and crystallinity are dependent on the polyethylene content of the interpolymer [¶ 333] and that the amount of gelation increases with crosslinking and amount of crosslinking agents, and the percent gel content is preferably from 5 to 100 percent [¶ 244]. This would motivate one of ordinary skill to use the polyolefin and crosslinking agent of Marchand with the resin composition of Xu, thereby arriving at the claimed invention. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS LING whose telephone number is (571)270-3961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, ARRIE LANEE REUTHER can be reached on (571)270-7026. 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.
/DORIS LING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
