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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Regarding claim 24, this claim states the term “optionally” which creates ambiguity within the claim. Specifically within the claim context it is unclear if this should be treated as an “or” statement or is intended to be included with the preceding claimed limitation. Examiner suggest the language of “or” to prevent any ambiguity.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-12 and 15-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jing et al. (WO2019239322) in view of Chapman, Jr. et al. (US PG. Pub. 2002/0161120)
Regarding claim 1 – Jing teaches an electronic telecommunication article comprising a crosslinked fluoropolymer layer ([page 13 & Abstract] Jing states, “crosslinking the amorphous fluoropolymer…a substrate comprising a coated surface of the fluoropolymer composition”) comprising fluoropolymer particles having a particle size of one micron ([page 4] Jing states, “the fluoropolymer particle size range may be about 50 to about 1000nm”), wherein the fluoropolymer comprises at least 80, 85, or 90% by weight of polymerized units of perfluorinated monomers and cure sites ([Abstract] Jing states, “the amorphous fluoropolymer comprises at least 90 wt-% of polymerized units from perfluorinated monomers”).
Jing fails to explicitly teach fluoropolymer particles having a particle size of greater than one micron.
Chapman teaches a fluoropolymer with fluoropolymer particles having a particle size of greater than one micron ([paragraph 0017] Chapman states, “said fluoropolymer having a weight average particle size greater than 2 microns and less than 10 microns”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the crosslinked fluoropolymer layer with the fluoropolymer comprises 90% by weight as taught by Jing with the fluoropolymer particles size being greater than one micron as taught by Chapman because Chapman states, “It has been surprising discovered that extrudable compositions which contain predominantly large particle size fluoropolymer actually process better, exhibiting fewer melt defects and have faster conditioning times, than those compositions which follow the recommendations of the prior art and strive for maximum fluoropolymer dispersion” [paragraph 0014].
Regarding claim 2 – Jing in view of Chapman teach the electronic telecommunication article of claim 1 wherein the crosslinked fluoropolymer layer is a substrate (Jing; [Abstract] Jing teaches, “a substrate comprising a coated surface of the fluoropolymer composition”), patterned (e.g. photoresist) layer, insulating layer, passivation layer, cladding, protective layer, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 3 – Jing in view of Chapman teach the electronic telecommunication article of claim 1 having a substrate (Jing; [Abstract] Jing teaches, “a substrate comprising a coated surface of the fluoropolymer composition”) but fail to explicitly teach wherein the article is an integrated circuit or printed circuit board or antenna or optical cable.
Official Notice is taken that a substrate can reasonably be use in/as a printed circuit board and is well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the substrate as taught by Jing in view of Chapman as a printed circuit board because polymer layers are easily formed/processed and provide effective insulation between circuit layers of a PCB.
Regarding claim 8 – Jing in view of Chapman teach the electronic telecommunication article of claim 1 wherein the fluoropolymer further comprises cure sites selected from nitrile (Jing; [page 9] Jing states, “cure sites containing nitrile or nitrile groups”), iodine, bromine, and chlorine.
Regarding claim 9 – Jing in view of Chapman teach the electronic telecommunication article of claim 1 wherein the perfluorinated monomers are selected from tetrafluoroethene (TFE) and one or more unsaturated perfluorinated alkyl ethers (Jing; [page 8] Jing states, “perfluorinated comonomers including tetrafluoroethene (TFE) and one or more of the unsaturated perfluorinated alkyl ethers”).
Regarding claim 10 – Jing in view of Chapman teach the electronic telecommunication article of claim 9 wherein the unsaturated perfluorinated alkyl ether of the fluoropolymer has the general formula
Rf-O-(CF2)n-CF=CF2
wherein n is 1 or 0 and Rf is a perfluoroalkyl or perfluoroether group ([page 7] Jing states, “unsaturated perfluorinated alkyl ethers are selected from the general formula:
RrO-(CF2)n-CF=CF2 wherein n is 1 (allyl ether) or 0 (vinyl ether) and Rf represents a perfluoroalkyl”).
Regarding claim 11 – Jing in view of Chapman teach the electronic telecommunication article of claim 1 wherein the crosslinked fluoropolymer is crosslinked with a curing agent selected from
a peroxide (Jing; [page 9] Jing states, “peroxide curing agents”) and an ethylenically unsaturated compound ([page 9] Jing states, “the unsaturated perfluorinated alkyl ethers”);
ii) one or more compounds comprising an electron donor group including amine curing agents and an ethylenically unsaturated group; or
iii) an amino organosilane ester compound or ester equivalent.
Regarding claim 12 – Jing in view of Chapman teaches the electronic telecommunication article of claim 1 wherein the curing agent comprises at least two ethylenically unsaturated groups (Jing; [page 9] Jing states, “one or more of the unsaturated perfluorinated alkyl ethers (such as PMVE, PAVE, PAAE or a combination thereof)”) or at least one ethylenically unsaturated group and at least one alkoxy silane group.
Regarding claim 15 – Jing in view of Chapman teach the electronic telecommunication article of claim 1 wherein the fluoropolymer comprises 40 to 60% by weight of polymerized units of TFE based on the total weight of the fluoropolymer ([page 8] Jing states, “The amorphous fluoropolymers may contain at least 40, 45, or 50 % by weight of polymerized units derived from TFE”).
Regarding claim 16 – Jing in view of Chapman teach the electronic telecommunication article of claim 1 wherein the crosslinked fluoropolymer comprises no greater than 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 or 0.1 wt.-% of polymerized units derived from non-fluorinated or partially fluorinated monomers ([page 13] Jing states, “Examples of non-fluorinated comonomers include but are not limited to ethene and propene. The amounts of units derived from these comonomers include from 0 to 8% by weight based on the total weight of the fluoropolymer. In some embodiments, the concentration of such comonomer is no greater than 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1% by weight based on the total weight of the fluoropolymer”) and/or comprises no greater than 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 or 0.1 wt.% of ester-containing linkages.
Regarding claim 17 – Jing in view of Chapman teach the electronic telecommunication article of claim 1 wherein the crosslinked fluoropolymer is insoluble in 3-ethoxy perfluorinated 2-methyl hexane ([page 13] Jing states, “when the amorphous fluoropolymer together with the dispersed crystalline fluoropolymer particles is heated to temperatures of 200 or 300°C, the composition becomes insoluble in fluorinated (e.g. HFE- 7500) solvent”; HFE-7500 is “3-ethoxy-1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-dodecafluoro-2-(trifluoromethyl)hexane” and appears to meet the limitaiton) or 3-methoxy perfluorinated 4-methyl pentane.
Regarding claim 18 – Jing in view of Chapman teach the electronic telecommunication article of claim 1 but fails to explicitly teach wherein the crosslinked fluoropolymer layer comprises 10 to 80 wt.% fluoropolymer particles having an average particle size of at least one micron.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the crosslinked fluoropolymer layer comprising 10-80wt% fluoropolymer particles with an average particle size of at least one micron, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 0158, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. As Chapman states in paragraph 0014 having the fluoropolymer particles being large (2-10um) “process better, exhibiting fewer melt defects and have faster conditioning times”. The larger amount of fluoropolymer particles at this size will emphasize the above quoted benefits.
Regarding claim 19 – Jing in view of Chapman teach the electronic telecommunication article of claim 1 wherein the fluoropolymer particles have a greater amount of polymerized units of TFE than the crosslinked fluoropolymer (Jing; [page 7] Jing states, “a fluoropolymer comprising about 76 wt.% of polymerized units of TFE, about 11 wt.% of polymerized units of HFP, and about 13 wt.% of polymerized units of VDF”).
Regarding claim 20 – Jing in view of Chapman teach the electronic telecommunication article of claim 1 wherein the crosslinked fluoropolymer layer further comprises submicron crystalline fluoropolymer particles (Jing; [claim 24] Jing states, “a fluoropolymer composition comprising crystalline submicron fluoropolymer particles”).
Regarding claim 21 – Jing in view of Chapman teach the electronic telecommunication article of claim 1 wherein the crosslinked fluoropolymer layer further comprises silica ([page 24] Jing states, “Other additives include but are not limited to clay, silicon dioxide, barium sulphate, silica, glass fibers”), glass fibre, thermally conductive filler or a combination thereof.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jing et al. in view of Chapman, Jr. et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Surendran et al. (US PG. Pub. 2014/0162065).
Regarding claim 7 – Jing in view of Chapman teach the electronic telecommunication article of claim 1 having a crosslinked fluoropolymer layer (discussed in the rejection to claim 1 above) but fails to teach wherein the crosslinked fluoropolymer layer has i) a dielectric constant (Dk) of less than 2.75, 2.70, 2.65, 2.60, 2.55, 2.50, 2.45, 2.40, 2.35, 2.30, 2.25, 2.20, 2.15, 2.10, 2.05,2.00,or 1.95; ii) a dielectric loss of less than 0.01, 0.009, 0.008, 0.007, 0.006, 0.005, 0.004, 0.003, 0.002, 0.001, 0.0009, 0.0008, 0.0007,or 0.0006; or a combination thereof.
Surendran teaches wherein the fluoropolymer layer has i) a dielectric constant (Dk) of less than 2.75, 2.70, 2.65, 2.60, 2.55, 2.50, 2.45, 2.40, 2.35, 2.30, 2.25, 2.20, 2.15, 2.10, 2.05,2.00,or 1.95; ii) a dielectric loss of less than 0.01, 0.009, 0.008, 0.007, 0.006, 0.005, 0.004, 0.003, 0.002, 0.001, 0.0009, 0.0008, 0.0007,or 0.0006; or a combination thereof ([paragraph 0045] Surendran states, “the fluoropolymer having dielectric constants of about 1.8 to about 2.55, preferably 2.1; dielectric loss of about 0.005 to about 0.0002, preferably 0.0003”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the crosslinked fluoropolymer layer as taught by Jing in view of Chapman with the specific dielectric constant and dielectric loss ranges of the fluoropolymer as taught by Surendran because these values provide reduced crosstalk, improved signal quality and reduced power loss within the PCB.
Claim(s) 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jing et al. in view of Chapman, Jr. et al. as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Dill et al. (US PG. Pub 2019/0143634).
Regarding claim 22 – Jing in view of Chapman teach the electronic telecommunication article of claim 21 but fails to teach wherein the silica is fumed silica, fused silica, glass bubbles, or a combination thereof.
Dill teaches wherein the silica is fumed silica ([paragraph 0021] Dill states, “said inorganic particles comprise particles selected from the group consisting of silica aerogel, fumed silica”), fused silica, glass bubbles, or a combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the crosslinked fluoropolymer layer having a silica as taught by Jing in view of Chapman with the silica being fumed silica as taught by Dill because fumed silica is an effective thickening agent and reinforcement filler.
Regarding claim 23 – Jing in view of Chapman and Dill teach the electronic telecommunication article of claim 22 wherein the fumed or fused silica has an aggregate particle size of at least 500 nm, 1 micron, 1.5 microns, or 2 microns ([paragraph 0021] Dill states, “said inorganic particles comprise particles selected from the group consisting of silica aerogel, fumed silica, precipitated silica, synthetic amorphous silica, and mixtures thereof; wherein said inorganic particles have a particle size between 0.1 to 100 microns”).
Regarding claim 24 – Jing in view of Chapman teach the electronic telecommunication article of claim 21 but fail to teach wherein the silica comprises a hydrophobic surface treatment optionally comprising a fluorinated alkoxy silane compound.
Dill teaches wherein the silica ([paragraph 0021] Dill states, “said inorganic particles comprise particles selected from the group consisting of silica aerogel, fumed silica”) comprises a hydrophobic surface treatment ([paragraph 0021] Dill states, “wherein said inorganic particles comprise a hydrophobic surface treatment”) optionally comprising a fluorinated alkoxy silane compound.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the crosslinked fluoropolymer layer having a silica as taught by Jing in view of Chapman with the silica comprising a hydrophobic surface treatment as taught by Dill because this feature will prevent corrosion and mold extending the lifespan of the overall structure.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jing et al. in view of Chapman, Jr. et al. as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Hamer et al. (US PG. Pub. 2016/0237298).
Regarding claim 25 – Jing in view of Chapman teach the electronic telecommunication article of claim 21 but fail to teach wherein the silica is present in an amount of at least 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, or 70 wt.% based on the total amount of the crosslinked fluoropolymer layer.
Hamer teaches wherein the silica ([paragraph 0072] Hamer states, “In some embodiments, the dried coating compositions comprises no greater than 60, 55, 50, 45 or 40 wt-% of (e.g. silica) inorganic nanoparticles”) is present in an amount of at least 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, or 70 wt.% based on the total amount of the crosslinked fluoropolymer layer ([paragraph 0012] Hamer states, “A dried coating may also be cured (i.e., crosslinked) as a result of reaction between the reactive functional groups of the fluoropolymer and the aziridine compound”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the crosslinked fluoropolymer layer having a silica as taught by Jing in view of Chapman with the silica being in the amount of 10-70 wt% based on the total amount of the crosslinked fluoropolymer layer as taught by Hamer because Hamer states, “In order to improve mechanical properties, such as abrasion resistance and pencil hardness” [paragraph 0072].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Qi (US PG. Pub. 2010/0055450) discloses a CNT/fluoropolymer coating composition.
Leendersen (US Patent 5783308) discloses a ceramic reinforced fluoropolymer.
Michalczyk et al. (US Patent 5726247) discloses a fluoropolymer nanocomposites.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN T SAWYER whose telephone number is (571)270-5469. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 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, Timothy Thompson can be reached at 5712722342. 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.
/STEVEN T SAWYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847