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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action replaces the non-final rejection mailed on 1/21/2026. Claims 1-14 are pending in the application and Claims 9-14 were previously withdrawn.
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], 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 argues that Pages 7-8 of 13 of their Remarks that Xu does not explicitly disclose the unsaturated bond-containing crosslinking agent present in the resin composition of Claim 1. Examiner acknowledges the AIBN of Xu was erroneously mapped to the unsaturated bond-containing crosslinking agent present in the claimed resin composition. As such, the rejection over Xu in view of Das is withdrawn and this office action replaces the previous non-final rejection mailed on 1/21/2026. Xu is now only relied upon to teach the copolymer comprising styrene and 4-vinylbenzocyclobutane. Rather, Marchand is relied upon to teach an ethylene / α-olefin block interpolymer for multilayer lamination films [Claim 1], comprising phenolic crosslinking agents [¶ 242], which corresponds to the claimed unsaturated bond-containing crosslinking agent. Marchand also teaches that the composition gelation increases with crosslinking due to crosslinking agents [¶ 244] which would motivate one of ordinary skill to modify the composition of Xu with the crosslinking agent of Marchand.
Applicant argues on Page 5 of 13 of their Remarks that (1) Examples 1-3, and 8-9 have a VBCB content below the lower limit of 55 wt. % recited in Claim 1. However, while Examples 1-3, and 8-9 teach a VBCB content below the claimed lower limit of 55 wt. %, attention is directed to the broader disclosure of Xu as outlined above wherein the molar ratio of styrene to 4-vinylbenzocyclobutane can be adjusted to 30:70 [¶ 0031], which is equivalent to 75 wt.% 4-vinylbenzocyclobutane, 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. The prior art is not required to teach all the claimed limitations in a single embodiment in order to render the claimed invention obvious. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Page 6 of 13 of their Remarks that (2) Claim 1 of the present application and Xu are not analogous art. However, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. In this case, Xu is also from the field of manufacturing multilayer components for circuits comprising copolymers of styrene and vinylbenzocyclobutene [¶ 0005, 0030]. In addition, the polymer of Xu and the instant claims are reasonably pertinent to the same problem of developing a polymer with a high glass transition temperature for multi-layered structures. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Page 6 of 13 of their Remarks that (3) there is no motivation to isolate the P(S-VBCB) first block from the DSA block copolymer of [0072] and expect it to serve as a PCB structural material with required properties (e.g., excellent interconnect reliability, lower dissipation factor aging rate, lower dielectric constant temperature coefficient TcDk, lower dissipation factor temperature coefficient TcDf, high glass transition temperature Tg, excellent multilayer board heat resistance, good laminate appearance, etc.). However, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., isolating the P(S-VBCB) from the block copolymer) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. Furthermore, since Xu in view of Marchand teaches the same composition produced with the same method as the instantly claimed invention, the composition of Xu and Marchand would be expected to also have the same properties as the instant invention, such as excellent interconnect reliability, lower dissipation factor aging rate, lower dielectric constant temperature coefficient TcDk, lower dissipation factor temperature coefficient TcDf, high glass transition temperature Tg, excellent multilayer board heat resistance, good laminate appearance, etc. Xu even explicitly discloses a glass transition temperature Tg of 110-250˚C [¶ 0046], which corresponds to the disclosed glass transition temperature of Tg greater than or equal to 160 ˚C of the claimed invention [Specification, Page 7, Lines 6-7]. The expectation of producing such advantageous properties would motivate one of ordinary skill to make the claimed invention. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pages 6-7 of 13 of their Remarks that (4) a skilled person will have no motivation to increase VBCB content in P(S-VBCB) to 75 wt. % because it is unnecessary and would greatly increase cost. However, while increasing the amount of VBCB might increase the cost of the final polymer composition there are many factors to consider other than cost when producing a polymer composition. In general, reactants may be chosen for their reaction temporal dynamics or stereochemistry or reaction specificity or sensitivity or commercial availability, or a plethora of other reasons. Furthermore, while increasing the amount of VBCB might increase the cost of the final product, it might be cheaper than using the other etch-adjusting monomers taught by Xu, such as 9-vinylphenanthrene [¶ 0030], a known expensive reagent. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Page 7 of 13 of their Remarks that (5) Xu does not explicitly disclose the polyolefin present in the resin composition of Claim 1. While Xu does not disclose the polyolefin of Claim 1, Marchand teaches an ethylene / α-olefin block interpolymer for multilayer lamination films [Claim 1], corresponding to the polyolefin of Claim 1. Marchand offers the motivation the heat of fusion and crystallinity are dependent on the polyethylene content of the interpolymer [¶ 333] which would motivate one of ordinary skill to look to Marchand to modify the resin composition of Xu. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Page 8 of 13 of their Remarks that (6) Das provides only polymer examples and no resin examples. However, Das is no longer relied upon to modify the teachings of Xu and to teach the claimed limitations. Nevertheless, prior art is not required to teach exemplary examples of the claimed limitations in order to render the claimed invention obvious. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Page 9 of 13 of their Remarks that (7) Xu and Das do not constitute analogous art in the same or related fields. However, Das is no longer relied upon to modify the teachings of Xu and to teach the claimed limitations. Nevertheless, prior art only need to be in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, not to the other prior art, in order for a prima facie case of obviousness to be established. In this case, Xu is similar to the claimed invention in that both are from the field of manufacturing circuits comprising copolymers of styrene and vinylbenzocyclobutene, and Marchand is similar to the claimed invention in that both are from the field of ethylene / α-olefin block interpolymer for multilayer lamination films comprising vinylbenzocylcobutene and styrene for the manufacturing of microelectronics. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Page 10 of 13 of their Remarks that (8) Compound 1 in Xu falls outside of the claimed ranges of 2≤m≤44 and 12≤n≤70. However, attention is directed the disclosure above, wherein 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. 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. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In light of the arguments on Pages 11-13 of applicant’s Remarks, the nonstatutory double patenting rejection over co-pending Application No. US 18/438233 is withdrawn.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights