CTFR 18/456,660 CTFR 86959 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1, 2, 5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-17, 46 and 49-53 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-2, 5, 7-12, 14-18, 46, 49, 51-53 of U.S. Patent No. 11781004 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims claim the same electronic telecommunication article comprising a specific structure (IC, circuit board, antenna or optical cable) having a crosslinked fluoropolymer with same range (80-90%) by weight of polymerized units of perfluorinated monomers and cure sites and substantially similar claim language regarding all other features . 08-35 Claim 1, 2, 5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-17, 46, 49-53 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-2, 5, 7-12, 14-18, 46, 49, 51-53 of copending Application No. 18266619 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims claim the same electronic telecommunication article comprising a specific structure (IC, circuit board, antenna or optical cable) having a crosslinked fluoropolymer with same range (80-90%) by weight of polymerized units of perfluorinated monomers and cure sites and substantially similar claim language regarding all other features . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-2, 8, 11, 46, 49 and 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US PG. Pub. 2015/0296614) in view of Simpson et al. (US PG. Pub. 2018/0174708) . Regarding claim 1 - Williams teaches an electronic telecommunication article comprising a crosslinked fluoropolymer layer (fig. 1, 10 [title] Williams states, “crosslinked fluoropolymer circuit material, circuit laminates”), comprising the fluoropolymer that comprises at least 80, 85, or 90% by weight of polymerized units of perfluorinated monomers selected from tetrafluoroethene (TFE) ([claim 4] Williams states, “wherein the fluoropolymer is a polymer of tetrafluoro ethylene”) and one or more unsaturated perfluorinated alkyl ethers ([paragraph 0021] Williams states, “allylated polyphenylene ethers”) and cure sites ([paragraph 0020] Williams states, “Crosslinkable fluoropolymers are commercially available, for example a terpolymer of vinylidene fluoride, hexafluoropropylene, and tetrafluoroethylene comprising 50-82% of vinylidene fluoride monomer units having <1% of monomer units providing an iodine cure site”); wherein the article is an integrated circuit, printed circuit board ([paragraph 0016] Williams states, “Thermoplastic fluoropolymers are one of the lowest loss polymer systems available for printed circuit boards”), an antenna, or an optical cable. Williams does not teach a fluoropolymer including crystalline fluoropolymer particles. Simpson teaches a fluoropolymer ([paragraph 0026] Simpson states, “Thermoplastic and Fluoropolymer Blend”) including crystalline fluoropolymer particles ([paragraph 0105] Simpson states, “Examples of the fluorine-containing crystalline polymer include polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), tetrafluoroethylene (TFE)/perfluoro(alkyl vinyl ether) (PAVE) copolymers (PFA), TFE/hexafluoropropylene (HFP) copolymers (FEP)”; these materials are consistent with materials of the crystalline fluoropolymer particles described in the specification of the instant application). 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 electronic telecommunication article comprising a crosslinked fluoropolymer layer as taught by Williams with the fluoropolymer composition that includes crystalline fluoropolymer particles as taught by Simpson because Simpson states regarding this composition, “Embodiments of the thermoplastic have excellent resistance to chemical penetration, adhesion, and leaching…The fluorine-containing crystalline polymer used for the masterbatch is preferably in the form of powder having an average particle size of 0.1 to 500.0 μm. This can lead to an electric wire having much better smoothness, appearance, and storage stability” [paragraph 0029 & 0157]. Regarding claim 2 – Williams in view of Simpson teach the electronic telecommunication article of claim 1 wherein the crosslinked fluoropolymer layer is a substrate, patterned (e.g. photoresist) layer, insulating layer, passivation layer, cladding (Williams; fig. 1, 10 [paragraph 0048] Williams states, “The subassembly is a single clad laminate 10 comprising a conductive metal layer 12 disposed on and in contact with a dielectric substrate layer 14. The dielectric substrate layer 14 comprises the crosslinked fluoropolymer”), protective layer, or a combination thereof. Regarding claim 8 – Williams in view of Simpson teach the electronic telecommunication article of claim 1 wherein the fluoropolymer further comprises cure sites selected from nitrile, iodine (Williams; [paragraph 0020] Williams states, “Crosslinkable fluoropolymers are commercially available, for example a terpolymer of vinylidene fluoride, hexafluoropropylene, and tetrafluoroethylene comprising 50-82% of vinylidene fluoride monomer units having <1% of monomer units providing an iodine cure site”), bromine, and chlorine. Regarding claim 11 – Williams in view of Simpson teach the electronic telecommunication article of claim 1 wherein the crosslinked fluoropolymer is crosslinked with a curing agent is selected from i) a peroxide (Williams; [paragraph 0024] Williams states, “A curing agent can be used to accelerate the curing reaction. For crosslinking groups having olefinic reactive sites, useful curing agents are organic peroxides such as dicumyl peroxide”) and an ethylenically unsaturated compound ([paragraph 0023] Williams states, “higher ethylenically unsaturated monomers such as divinyl benzene, triallyl cyanurate”); ii) one or more compounds comprising an electron donor group and an ethylenically unsaturated group; or iii) an amino organosilane ester compound or ester equivalent. Regarding claim 46 – Williams in view of Simpson teach the electronic telecommunication article of claim 1 wherein the crosslinked fluoropolymer layer further comprises silica (Williams; [paragraph 0027] Williams states, “Examples of particulate fillers include, without limitation, titanium dioxide (rutile and anatase), barium titanate, strontium titanate, silica (including fused amorphous silica)”), glass fibers, or a combination thereof. Regarding claim 49– Williams in view of Simpson teach the electronic telecommunication article of claim 1 wherein the crosslinked fluoropolymer layer further comprises a thermally conductive filler (Williams; [paragraph 0027] Williams states, “Examples of particulate fillers include, without limitation, titanium dioxide (rutile and anatase), barium titanate, strontium titanate, silica (including fused amorphous silica)”). Regarding claim 50 – Williams in view of Simpson teach the electronic telecommunication article, composition, or methods of claims 46 wherein the silica is fumed silica, fused silica (Williams; [paragraph 0027] Williams states, “Examples of particulate fillers include, without limitation, titanium dioxide (rutile and anatase), barium titanate, strontium titanate, silica (including fused amorphous silica)”), glass bubbles, or a combination thereof . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 10-12, 14-16 and 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verschere (WO2018107017) in view of Williams et al. and further in view of Simpson et al . Regarding claim 1 - Verschere teaches an electronic telecommunication article comprising a crosslinked fluoropolymer layer ([page 5] Verschere states, “The fluoropolymer preferably is a curable elastomer and contains one or more cure-sites. Cure sites are functional groups that react in the presence of a curing agent or a curing system to cross-link the polymers”), comprising fluoropolymer that comprises at least 80, 85, or 90% by weight of polymerized units of perfluorinated monomers selected from tetrafluoroethene (TFE) and one or more unsaturated perfluorinated alkyl ethers ([page 1] Verschere states, “derived from tetrafluoroethene (TFE) and one or more perfluorinated alkyl ethers”) and cure sites ([page 1] Verschere states, “the fluoropolymer is a copolymer comprising at least 90 % by weight (based on the total weight of the polymer, which is 100 % by weight) of units derived from tetrafluoroethene (TFE) and one or more perfluorinated alkyl ethers corresponding to the general formula”); wherein the article is used in a substrate ([page 14] Verschere states, “The compositions may be used for impregnating substrates, printing on substrates (for example screen printing), or coating substrates”). Verschere does not teach wherein the article is an integrated circuit, printed circuit board, an antenna, or an optical cable; and a fluoropolymer including crystalline fluoropolymer particles. Williams teaches wherein the article is an integrated circuit, printed circuit board ([paragraph 0016] Williams states, “Thermoplastic fluoropolymers are one of the lowest loss polymer systems available for printed circuit boards”), an antenna, or an optical cable. 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 electronic telecommunication article comprised of a crosslinked fluoropolymer layer used in a substrate as taught by Verschere with an electronic telecommunication article having a crosslinked fluoropolymer layer wherein the article is a printed circuit board as taught by Williams because Williams states, “a fluoropolymer in a circuit board dielectric material by crosslinking as described herein can increase the high temperature performance of the resulting material” [paragraph 0028]. Simpson teaches a fluoropolymer ([paragraph 0026] Simpson states, “Thermoplastic and Fluoropolymer Blend”) including crystalline fluoropolymer particles ([paragraph 0105] Simpson states, “Examples of the fluorine-containing crystalline polymer include polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), tetrafluoroethylene (TFE)/perfluoro(alkyl vinyl ether) (PAVE) copolymers (PFA), TFE/hexafluoropropylene (HFP) copolymers (FEP)”; these materials are consistent with the specification of the instant application). 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 electronic telecommunication article comprising a crosslinked fluoropolymer layer as taught by Verschere in view of Williams with the fluoropolymer composition that includes crystalline fluoropolymer particles as taught by Simpson because Simpson states regarding this composition, “Embodiments of the thermoplastic have excellent resistance to chemical penetration, adhesion, and leaching…The fluorine-containing crystalline polymer used for the masterbatch is preferably in the form of powder having an average particle size of 0.1 to 500.0 μm. This can lead to an electric wire having much better smoothness, appearance, and storage stability” [paragraph 0029 & 0157]. Regarding claim 10 – Verschere in view of Williams and Simpson 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 (Verschere; see same equation as shown described in bottom page 1) wherein n is 1 or 0 and Rf is a perfluoroalkyl (Verschere; [page 2] Verschere states, “wherein n is 1 or 0 and Rf represents a perfluoroalkyl residue”) or perfluoroether group. Regarding claim 11 – Verschere in view of Williams and Simpson teach the electronic telecommunication article of claim 1 wherein the crosslinked fluoropolymer is crosslinked with a curing agent is selected from i) a peroxide (Verschere [page 9] Verschere states, “A peroxide cure system may also include in addition one or more coagent”) and an ethylenically unsaturated compound ([page 9] Verschere states, “coagent includes a polyunsaturated compound…2,4,6- trivinyl methyltrisiloxane; N,N'-m-phenylenebismaleimide; diallyl-phthalate and tri(5-norbornene-2- methylene)cyanurate”); ii) one or more compounds comprising an electron donor group and an ethylenically unsaturated group; or iii) an amino organosilane ester compound or ester equivalent. Regarding to claim 12 – Verschere in view of Williams and Simpson teach the electronic telecommunication article of claim 1 wherein the curing agent comprises at least two ethylenically unsaturated groups ([page 9] Verschere states, “coagent includes a polyunsaturated compound…2,4,6- trivinyl methyltrisiloxane; N,N'-m-phenylenebismaleimide; diallyl-phthalate and tri(5-norbornene-2- methylene)cyanurate”) or at least one ethylenically unsaturated group and at least one alkoxy silane group. Regarding claim 14 – Verschere in view of Williams and Simpson teach the electronic telecommunication article of claim 1, wherein the crosslinked fluoropolymer is crosslinked with an amine curing agent (Verschere [page 9] Verschere states, “Examples of useful coagents include triallyl cyanurate; triallyl isocyanurate; triallyl trimellitate; tri(methylallyl)isocyanurate; tris(diallylamine)-s- triazine”). Regarding claim 15 – Verschere in view of Williams and Simpson 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 5] Verschere states, “The fluoropolymers may contain at least 50 % by weight of units derived from TFE”). Regarding claim 16 – Verschere in view of Williams and Simpson 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 ([page 12] Verschere 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 %, or from 0 to 5, or from 0 to 1 % and preferably are 0 % (percents by weight based on the weight of the polymer)”) or partially fluorinated monomers and/or comprises no greater than 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 or 0.1 wt.% of ester-containing linkages. Regarding claim 46 – Verschere in view of Williams and Simpson teach the electronic telecommunication article of claim 1 wherein the crosslinked fluoropolymer layer further comprises silica (Verschere; [page 13] Verschere states, “Other additives include but are not limited to clay, silicon dioxide, barium sulphate, silica, glass fibers, or other additives known and used in the art”), glass fibers, or a combination thereof . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. in view of Simpson et al . as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Hosoda et al. (US PG. Pub. 2019/0144700) . Regarding claim 5 – Williams in view of Simpson teach the electronic telecommunication article of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the antenna is an antenna of a computer device or of an outdoor structure. Hosoda teaches wherein the electronic telecommunication article ([paragraph 0121] Hosoda states, “The heat-meltable resin may, for example, be a fluororesin made of a fluoropolymer”) is an antenna of a computer device or of an outdoor structure ([paragraph 0276] Hosoda states, “The film or laminate obtainable by the production method of the present invention, is useful for antenna parts, printed circuit boards”). 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 electronic telecommunication article comprised of a crosslinked fluoropolymer layer as taught by Williams in view of Simpson with a fluoropolymer layer used in conjunction with an antenna as taught by Hosoda because this material will protect the antenna, obtain excellent adhesion and prevent a “a trouble such as decreased in electrical characteristics” [Hosoda; paragraph 0141] . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. in view of Simpson et al . as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Surendran et al. (US PG. Pub. 2014/0162065) . Regarding claim 7 – Williams in view of Simpson teach the electronic telecommunication article of claim 1 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, 1.95 ([paragraph 0028] Williams states, “a dielectric constant that can be adjusted to 1 to 13, for example from 2 to 7, from 2.5 to 3, or from 2 to 9, depending on the fluoropolymer, the degree of crosslinking, and the type and amount of filler or fillers”). Williams in view of Simpson fail to explicitly teach 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, 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 Williams in view of Simpson 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 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. in view of Simpson et al . as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nowak et al. (US PG. Pub. 2019/0023830) . Regarding claim 14 – Williams in view of Simpson teach the electronic telecommunication article of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the crosslinked fluoropolymer is crosslinked with an amine curing agent. Nowak teaches wherein the crosslinked fluoropolymer is crosslinked with an amine curing agent ([paragraph 0165] Nowak states, “Chain extenders or crosslinkers are also known as curing agents, curatives, or hardeners. In polyurethane/urea systems, a curative is typically comprised of hydroxyl-terminated or amine-terminated compounds which react with isocyanate groups present in the mixture”). 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 Williams in view of Simpson with the crosslinked fluoropolymer being crosslinked with an amine curing agent as taught by Nowak because amines are known to allow for control of the cure speed ensuring optimal performance . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. in view of Simpson et al . as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Karasawa (US PG. Pub. 2011/0260945) . Regarding claim 17 – Williams in view of Simpson teach the electronic telecommunication article of claim 1 but fails to explicitly teach wherein the crosslinked fluoropolymer is insoluble in 3-ethoxy perfluorinated 2-methyl hexane or 3-methoxy perfluorinated 4-methyl pentane. Karasawa teaches wherein a fluoropolymer is insoluble ([paragraph 0028] Karasawa states, “In one embodiment, a coating composition is prepared by dispersing particles of a fluoropolymer (fluoropolymer B) which is insoluble in a solvent”) in 3-ethoxy perfluorinated 2-methyl hexane or 3-methoxy perfluorinated 4-methyl pentane. 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 electronic telecommunication article comprising a crosslinked fluoropolymer as taught by Williams in view of Simpson with the fluoropolymer being insoluble as taught by Karasawa because Karasawa states, “the present disclosure contains solvent insoluble fluoropolymer particles and therefore can properly improve the viscosity without shortening a working life up to drying of a coating composition. Therefore, it becomes easy to perform thick coating of the coating composition and a thick transparent coating membrane can be formed by a single coating operation” [paragraph 0023] . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 51 and 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. in view of Simpson et al . as applied to claim s 46 & 50 above, and further in view of Dill et al. (US PG. Pub 2019/0143634) . Regarding claim 51 – Williams in view of Simpson teach the electronic telecommunication article of claim 50 but fails to teach wherein the fumed or fused silica has an aggregate particle size of at least 500 nm, 1 micron, 1.5 microns, or 2 microns. Dill teaches wherein the fumed or fused silica ([paragraph 0021] Dill states, “said inorganic particles comprise particles selected from the group consisting of silica aerogel, fumed 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”). 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 fused silica as taught by Williams in view of Simpson with fumed silica having an aggregate particle size of between 500nm-2um as taught by Dill because this material and sizing will form an effective thickening agent and reinforcement filler. Regarding claim 52 – Williams in view of Simpson teach the electronic telecommunication article of claim 46 but fail to teach wherein the silica comprises a hydrophobic surface treatment or 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”) or 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 Williams in view of Simpson 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 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. in view of Simpson et al . as applied to claim 46 above, and further in view of Hamer et al. (US PG. Pub. 2016/0237298) . Regarding claim 53 – Williams in view of Simpson teach the electronic telecommunication article of claim 46 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 Williams in view of Simpson 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]. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-17, 46 and 50-53 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. 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 Application/Control Number: 18/456,660 Page 2 Art Unit: 2847 Application/Control Number: 18/456,660 Page 3 Art Unit: 2847
Prosecution Insights