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
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al (US 2020/0148881, ‘881 hereafter) in view of Yao et al (CN 104086593, ‘593 hereafter, citations please see original document in Chinese).
Regarding claims 1-9, ‘881 discloses a resin composition comprising an epoxy resin which is one of the epoxy resin as listed in the present claim 3 ([0006]-[0009], [0028]-[0031], [0036], [0082], Table 1, Example E6); a maleimide-triazine resin formed from a bismaleimide compound and a cyanate ester compound having two or more cyanate group boned to aromatic rings satisfying present claims 4-7 ([0009], [0032], [0036], [0084], [0090]-[0091], Table 1, Example E6, these compounds mixed together forms into maleimide-triazine resin after crosslinked); a curing agent as in present claim 9 ([0049]); and a flame retardant including a di-DOPO ([0054]-[0056]) with weight ratio satisfying present claim 2 (1 to 200 parts flame retardant [0054], to 6-34 parts of maleimide-triazine resin [0036]). ‘881 does not specifically name a flame retardant having a structure as recited in the claims 1 and 8, however, in the same filed of endeavor, ‘593 discloses a di-DOPO compound having a structure as presently claimed ([0010]-[0030]), which can be used in an epoxy resin composition to provide good flame retardant effect and high thermal and chemical stability to epoxy resin [0009], [0069], [0103]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize di-DOPO compound as taught by ‘593, to modify the composition of ‘881 to render a resin composition having good flame retardation and high thermal stability.
Regarding claims 10-12, modified ‘881 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, ‘881 also discloses the composition further comprising a curing accelerator, an elastomer, and a filler as presently claimed ([0057], [0058], [0062]).
Regarding claims 13-17, modified ‘881 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, ‘881 also discloses that the composition can used to prepare a prepreg, metal clad laminate or a printed circuit board ([0065]-[0069]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUIYUN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7934. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Arron Austin can be reached on 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/RUIYUN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights