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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 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. Claim s 1 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al . (WO 2022/097684 A1) which is published in English as Nishimura et al. (US 2023/0374186) which is relied upon for making the current rejections. In regards to claim 1, Nishimura teaches a resin composition comprising a maleimide compound (I) that is the product of a reaction of a diamine and a dimer acid and maleic anhydride and a reactive polycarboxylic acid resin (abstract). The structure of formula I is analogous to the structure of formula 1 of the claim, where R1 and R3 are dimer acid derived hydrocarbon groups analogous to D of the claim, and R2 is a divalent hydrocarbon group analogous to B of the claim [0013, 0014]. Nishimura teaches one or more , or two or more kinds of the compounds of formula I can be used in combination [0046]. The compounds having the structure of formula 1 of the claim are known to be solid at 25℃ according to applicant’s disclosure (see page 5). Thus, the maleimide of Nishimura would be expected to be solid , similarly . The composition comprises a catalyst and a photopolymerization initiator [0074 , 0097 ]. In regards to claim 2, Nishimura teaches the composition having the claimed limitation as previously discussed. In regards to claim 3, Nishimura teaches the composition wherein R4 and R5 which are analogous to A in the formula 1 of the claim are C4 to C40 tetravalent organic groups that meet the claimed limitations 3 [0030, 0031 and 0034]. In regards to claim 4, Nishimura teaches the composition which is heated to form the composition which provides the heat curing of the claim [0168]. In regards to claim 5, Nishimura teaches the composition which can comprise polymerization initiators such as cationic initiators which includes borates [0103]. Borates are anionic compounds and thus also provide the limitation of anionic polymerization initiators. In regards to claim 6, Nishimura teach the composition having the anionic polymerization initiator as previously stated. The composition can comprise epoxy resin groups having two or more epoxy groups per molecular as claimed [0050]. In regards to claim 7, Nishimura teaches the composition having dielectric tangent of 0.005 [0161, Example 1]. The composition would be expected to have the claimed values after curing. In regards to claim 8, Nishimura teaches the curable composition of the claim and would be expected to have similar properties when used on similar test pieces. The composition is useful on copper foil similar to the claim [0174]. In regards to claim 9, Nishimura teaches the cured product film on a surface such as a copper foil which provides the bonded surface (i.e., copper clad laminate) as claimed [0168]. In regards to claim 10, Nishimura teaches the composition as a bonding film which is useful on a printed wiring board as claimed [0123 – 0125 ]. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claim s 1, 3, 4, 7 – 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 – 3, 12, 13 of copending Application No. 17/549,260 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending application teach composition having the compounds of formula 1 and formula 2 and a catalyst of the claims, and which comprises groups analogous to A of the claims and is used to provide a curable composition on a printed wire boards and thus would be expected to have similar properties as claimed . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TAIWO OLADAPO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3723 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8-5pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Prem Singh can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-6381 . 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. /TAIWO OLADAPO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771