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 .
DETAILED ACTION
All the references cited in the International Search Report have been considered. The most pertinent of these references have been applied below.
Possible Status as Continuation-in-Part
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior PCT/JO22813158, filed 03/22/22, and adds additional disclosure not presented in the prior application. Because the applicant adds subject matter not disclosed in the parent patent application, but repeats a substantial portion of the parent's specification, and/or this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq.
The filing date of this application is determined as 03/22/22.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Species I, Claims 1-4, is acknowledged. All groups are distinct inventions and present a serious burden to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office based on a proper lack of unity analysis. The traversal is on the ground that the restriction is only proper if the claims are independent or distinct and there would be a serious burden placed on the Examiner if restriction is not required. This is not found persuasive because the issue as to the meaning and intent regarding “independent and distinct” as used in 35 U.S.C 121 and 37 CFR 1.41, which is for national applications, but it is not used for PCT national stage (371) applications. For PCT national stage applications, restriction is based upon unity of invention; restriction of a national stage application does not take into account whether or not the inventions are independent or distinct, and does not take into account burden on the examiner.
This restriction is made FINAL. The restriction and election of species as stated in the previous office action are repeated here as such.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is(are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Azatyan et al. listed on IDS and ISR.
As to claims 1-2, Azatyan discloses
PNG
media_image1.png
132
752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is(are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Malinge et al. (US 4764578, listed on IDS and ISR).
As to claims 1-2 and 4, Malinge (Ex.9) discloses
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, wherein n=50 that would inherently yield a Mw within the range of claim 4, because the PDI of the polymer is inherently ≥1.
Claim(s) 1-2 is(are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamaguchi et al. (US 4803258, listed on IDS and ISR).
As to claims 1-2 and 4, Yamaguchi (Ex.1 and 7) discloses:
PNG
media_image3.png
191
602
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
151
583
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Since 2,6-dihalogenopyridine is excessive in moles, the polymer would inherently be terminated with the moiety of pyridine according to the principle of condensational polymerization.
Claim(s) 1-4 is(are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Endo et al. (WO 2021187481, listed on IDS and ISR).
As to claims 1-2 and 4, Malinge (Ex.1) discloses
PNG
media_image5.png
120
1142
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
200
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, Mw=33367.
Since 4,6-dichloropyrimidine is excessive in moles, the polymer would inherently be terminated with the moiety of pyrimidine according to the principle of condensational polymerization.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is(are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishimura et al. (WO 2019054334, US 20200281076 as English equivalent).
Nishimura (claims, abs., examples) discloses a composition for printed circuit laminates (1, 10, 17, 119) comprising vinyl or ally compound for crosslinking (74-75) and a copolymer of (EX.4 and 3):
PNG
media_image7.png
117
652
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
200
400
media_image8.png
Greyscale
, Mw=187k.
PNG
media_image9.png
200
660
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
200
400
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Mw=165k.
Since 4,6-dichloro-2-phenylpyrimidine is excessive in moles, the polymer would inherently be terminated with the moiety of phenylpyrimidine according to the principle of condensational polymerization.
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 of this title, 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) 3 is (are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (WO 2019054334, US 20200281076 as English equivalent) in view of Shinohara et al. (US 20020172652).
Disclosure of Nishimura is adequately set forth in ¶5 and is incorporated herein by reference.
Nishimura is silent on the claimed phenol having allyl groups.
In the same area of endeavor of producing a crosslinkable composition for printed circuit boards (373), Shinohara (abs., examples, claims) discloses (1, 337, 361, 367) using a reactive double bond containing 2,2’-diallybisphenol A as a radical generator for crosslinking to improve heat resistance.
Therefore, as to claims 3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the polymer in Ex. 4 disclosed by Nishimura and replaced bisphenol A with 2,2’-diallybisphenol A in view of Shinohara, because the resultant polymer would yield improved heat resistance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7378. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs. 8am-6pm. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached on 571.572.1302. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHANE FANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights