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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/18/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hsieh 20200140621A1.
Regarding claim 1, Hsieh teaches a functionalized polyphenylene ether that is used to form a copper laminate (Abstract). Hsieh teaches the functionalized polyphenylene ether undergoes a redistribution reaction with a phosphorous containing phenol compound (Paragraph [0018]). This reads on the claimed “phenol compound.” Hsieh also teaches the radical initiator for the redistribution reaction is BPO (Paragraph [0090]). Hsieh teaches the polymer is then washed with a base NaHCO3 (Paragraph [0050]). Hsieh additionally teaches the resulting polymer is precipitated in methanol, redissolved in toluene and reprecipitated in methanol. This reads on the claimed “recrystallization” step.
Regarding claim 2, Hsieh teaches the first polyarylene ether is poly(2,6-dimethylphenyl ether) (Paragraph [0050]). This reads on the limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Hsieh teaches the amount of radical initiator is 10 grams in to 10 grams of phenol compound (Paragraph [0050]) (Table 1 Paragraph [0051]). This is 1x the amount of phenol compound. This falls within range of 0.05 times to 2 times the amount of phenol compound.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh 20200140621A1 in view of Liska US 5880221A.
Regarding claim 4, Hsieh is silent about the redistribution reaction additionally comprising a catalyst. Liska teaches a method of redistribution of polyphenylene ether (Abstract). Liska teaches the redistribution reaction occurs with a phenolic compound an initiator and a phase transfer catalyst (Abstract). This reads on the claimed “catalyst.”
Liska teaches the phase transfer catalyst acts as a promoter (Col. 8 Lines 38-40). Liska teaches the catalyst can be benzoyl peroxide (Col. 8 Lines 13-15). It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Liska also teaches the polyphenylene ether is used to form thermosetting compositions (Col. 7 Lines 12-16). Hsieh also teaches the PPE is used to form thermosetting compositions (Paragraph [0002])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the phase transfer catalyst promoter of Liska in the polyphenylene ether redistribution reaction of Hsieh because the phase transfer catalyst of Liska is shown to be a suitable in redistribution reactions of PPE used in thermosets. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.07
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 11, Hsieh also teaches the number average molecular weight is between 2688-4945 g/mol (Table 1 and Table 2). This overlaps with the claimed range of 1,000 to 3,000 g/mol. Hsieh also teaches the PDI is 1.25-1.77 (Table 1 and Table 2). This overlaps with the claimed range of less than 1.8. Hsieh does teach the modified resin has an hydroxyl group content 2.09% in synthetic example 2, Hsieh teaches the molecular weight is 3251, this corresponds to the average number of hydroxyl groups per molecule of 3.99. This falls within the range of 2.2 or greater.
However, Hsieh does not read on the limitations of claim 11, specifically, Hsieh does not read that the crystallization step comprises first adding a low polarity solvent, removing the precipitate after adding the low polarity solvent and adding a high polarity solvent after removing the precipitate to precipitate the modified polyphenylene ether resin. Hsieh teaches adding the methanol (high polarity), removing the precipitate, and adding the toluene (low polarity) then methanol (high polarity) (Paragraph [0050]). This does not follow the recrystallization steps exhibited in claim 11, therefore Hsieh does not read on the limitations of claim 11.
Relevant Prior Art
As exhibited by the prior art below, redistribution reactions and subsequent alkaline washes are well known and exhibited heavily in the art. Additionally, precipitation purifications are also common. However, such purifications do not read on the limitation of claim 11 and are not “recrystallization” reactions.
Regarding claim 1, Onizuka 20090018303 teaches a method of redistribution of a polyphenylene ether (Abstract). In the redistribution reaction, the polyphenylene ether is reacted with a polyphenol compound and a radical initiator (Abstract). Onizuka also teaches washing the resulting compound with an alkaline washing step to improve the resulting physical properties of the polymer (Paragraph [0029]). However, Onizuka is silent on the recrystallization step of the reaction.
Onizuka teaches the polyphenylene ether is used to form a copper clad laminate. (Paragraph [0080]). However, Onizuka is silent on the recrystallization reaction. Therefore, Onizuka is silent on the limitations of claim 1.
Takeda US006586567B2 teaches a method of purifying a polyphenylene ether polymer (not redistributed) where a water-soluble poor solvent is added to the polyphenylene ether solution to precipitate a polyphenylene ether compound (Col. 2 Lines 19-25).
Freshour US006897282, teaches a method of purifying a polyphenylene ether resin where the polyphenylene ether resin in toluene is precipitated into methanol (Col. 19 Lines 5-15). However, Freshour is silent about the removal of the precipitate after the addition of toluene. Therefore, Freshour does not read on the limitations of claim 11.
Cella US 6339131 B1 teaches a method of purifying a redistributed polyphenylene ether. Cella teaches the purification step is first the addition of methanol to precipitate the polymer and further addition or methanol (Col. 12 Lines 30-55). This precipitation does not read on the claimed steps of the recrystallization procedure of claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILY K SLOAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30 ET.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
/LILY K SLOAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights