DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This application is a national stage entry under 35 U.S.C. §371 of International Application No. PCT/IB2022/053284 filed 4/7/2022 . Acknowledgment is made of p rovisional application No. 63/184,392, filed on May 5, 2021. Claims 1-3, 7-14, 16-23, 25 are pending. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 23 recites the fluorinated solvent selected from a partially. It would not be clear what fluorinated solvent is within the scope of claim 23 since no solvents are recited. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. 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. Claims 1- 3, 7-14, 16-23, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosoda et al. ( US 2019/0144700 ) in view of Jing et al. ( WO 2019 / 239322 ). Regarding claim 1 : Hosoda is directed to an electronic telecommunication article including antenna parts ([0276] Hosoda) comprising a layer of a fluoropolymer composition comprising: A n amorphous fluoropolymer composition comprising polymerized units perfluorinated monomers including 90-99.89 mol% tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) and 0.1-9.99 mol% perfluoropropylvinyl ether (PPVE), (see paragraphs [0064]-[0066], [0293]-[0295], [0297]- [0301], claims 1-8) A crystalline fluoropolymer is not mentioned. Jing is directed to a coating composition used for a variety of applications including coating electrical electrodes, fuel cells, electrolysis cells and articles of corrosive environments ([0140] Jing) comprising an amorphous fluoropolymer comprising at least 90 wt% weight of polymerized units of perfluorinated monomers including one or more unsaturated perfluorinated alkyl ethers (pref erably TFE/PMVE) and A crystalline submicron fluoropolymer particles (e.g. TFE/HFP copolymers or PTFE with a minor amount of HFP, PMVE or PPVE); wherein the fluoropolymer composition lacks crosslinks of a chemical curing agent. (see abstract, T ables 1- 3 ) . One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have included the crystalline fluoropolymer of Jing in the composition of Hosoda since Jing teaches the composition comprising an amorphous fluoropolymer and crystalline submicron fluoropolymer particles show good adhesion to various substrates (see p. 26, I. 32-34) . Jing also states that the addition of crystalline fluoropolymer particles to the amorphous fluoropolymer leads to a physically crosslinked coating layer (see p. 12, I. 23-30 and T able 3). Therefore, i t would be obvious to the person skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to add crystalline fluoropolymer particles to arrive at claim 1 of the present invention . Regarding claim 2 : A pattern layer is formed as well as a coverlay and adhesive layer (equivalent to a protective layer) and insulating layer are disclosed ([0270] - [0274] Hosoda). Regarding claim 3 : An integrated circuit and printed circuit board are disclosed ([0270] Hosoda). Regarding claim 7 : T he composition has a dielectric constant of 2.1 in Example 1 ([0204] Hosoda ). Regarding claim 8 : Hosoda discloses the amorphous fluoropolymer composition comprising polymerized units perfluorinated monomers including 90-99.89 mol% tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) and 0.1-9.99 mol% perfluoropropylvinyl ether (PPVE), (see paragraphs [0064]-[0066], [0293]-[0295], [0297]- [0301], claims 1-8) . Regarding claim 9 : P erfluoropropylvinyl ether (PPVE) has the general formula of claim 9 wherein n is 0 and Rf is a perfluoroalkyl group. Regarding claim 10 : The crystalline fluoropolymer of Jing comprises hexafluoropropylene . Regarding claim 11 : P erfluorinated monomers including 90-99.89 mol% tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) and 0.1-9.99 mol% perfluoropropylvinyl ether (PPVE) ([0059] Hosoda). Regarding claim 12 : The crystalline fluor o polymer of Jing is insoluble in fluorinated solvent ( p. 12 Jing). Regarding claim 13 : The crystalline fluoropolymer can include 100% TFE units ([0027] Jing) and therefore more than the amorphous fluoropolymer in Hosoda. Regarding claim 14 : The crystalline fluoropolymer contains crystalline submicron fluoropolymer particles ( Claim 1 Jing). Regarding claim 1 6 : The composition is heated past the glass transition temperature and melting temperature as taught in both Hosoda and Jing. See [0193] [0222] Hosoda and therefore one skilled in the art would conclude the crystalline fluoropolymer particles are sintered with amorphous fluoropolymer particles. Regarding claim 17 : Examples 2-2 and 2-3 of Jing comprises 10-20 wt% crystalline fluoropolymer PFA of the composition in PFE-2 (Table 2 J i ng). Regarding claim s 18 -19 : While Jing doesn’t specifically disclose the amount of normalized crystallinity, Jing teaches the amount of crystallinity is a function of the selection and concentration of polymerized monomers of the fluoropolymer ([0026] Jing). Hence, the amount of normalized crystallinity is a result-effective variable (MPEP 2144.05). In other words , a particular selection and concentration of polymerized monomers of the fluoropolymer is a matter of routine experimentation and would have been well within the skill level of, and thus obvious to, one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected an amount of polymerized monomers of the fluoropolymer resulting in a composition having a normalized crystallinity within the scope of the claims. Regarding claim s 20 - 2 1 : The combination of Hosoda and Jing doesn't specifically recite the fluoropolymer composition has a lower first cycle storage modulus for a temperature in a range from 100 ˚C to a temperature less than the melt temperature of the fluoropolymer composition than the same flu oro polymer composition further comprising crosslinks of a chemical curing agent . However, the fluoropolymer composition produced in t he combination of Hosoda and Jing is substantially identical to the composition produced in the instant invention. Case law holds that the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01(I). Hence, the combination of Hosoda and Jing suggests a composition having a having a lower first cycle storage modulus within the scope of the claims. Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01. Regarding claim 22 : The combination of Hosoda and Jing doesn't specifically recite the fluoropolymer composition has a n irreversible storage modulus increase between the first cycle and second cycle at a temperature in a range from 100 ˚C to a temperature less than the melt temperature of the fluoropolymer composition . However, the fluoropolymer composition produced in the combination of Hosoda and Jing is substantially identical to the composition produced in the instant invention. Case law holds that the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01(I). Hence, the combination of Hosoda and Jing suggests a composition having a having a n irreversible storage modulus increase between the first cycle and second cycle within the scope of the claims. Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01. Regarding claim 23 : The crystalline fluor o polymer of Jing is insoluble in fluorinated solvent ( p. 12 Jing). Regarding claim 25 : Cure sites of nitrile can be included with the crystalline fluoropolymer of Jing ( p. 12 Jing). Chlorine can also be included as a cure site ( p. 10 Jing). Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ROBERT T BUTCHER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3514 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Telework M-F 9-5 Pacific Time Zone . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Lanee Reuther can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-7026 . 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. /ROBERT T BUTCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764