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/IB2022/053281 filed 4/7/2022 . Acknowledgment is made of p rovisional application No. 63/184,444, filed on May 5, 2021, provisional application No. 63/244,880, filed on Sep. 16, 2021 . Claims 1-2, 7-9, 12-18, 20-22, 24-27 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 s 8, 13, 21 are 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation at least 25, and the claim also recites at least 15, 20 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Regarding claim 13, the phrase "e.g. copper" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 13 recites a higher adhesion to (e.g. copper) metal than a random fluoropolymer having the same composition. It would not be clear the meaning and scope of a random fluoropolymer having the same composition. For instance, the Examiner does not understand the meaning of a “random fluoropolymer” or “the same composition” since these are not defined nor do they find antecedent basis in the claims. C laim 21 recites the broad recitation no greater than 5, and the claim also recites 4,3,2,1 or 0.01 wt% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. 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 1-2, 7-9, 12-15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosoda et al. (US 2019/0144700) . 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 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) . When converted to weight percent, a TFE/PPVE copolymer comprising 90.01 mol% TFE and 9.99 mol% PPVE would have a wt% TFE of 77 wt% and PPVE of 23 wt%. While a specific electronic telecommunications article comprising the claimed layer of fluoropolymer composition is not specifically mentioned in a single article, it would have been obvious to have selected such an article since Hosoda discloses finite number of identified, predictable options and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. 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). An integrated circuit and printed circuit board are disclosed ([0270] Hosoda). Regarding claim 7 : T he composition has a dielectric constant of 2.1 0 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) . When converted to weight percent, a TFE/PPVE copolymer comprising 90.01 mol% TFE and 9.99 mol% PPVE would have a wt% TFE of 77 wt% and PPVE of 23 wt%. 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 s 12 -13 : While claim 12 further limits the core shell fluoropolymer, claim 1 recites the core shell fluoropolymer in the alternative. Therefore, claim 12 is met fluoropolymer comprising TFE is disclosed. Regarding claim 14 : The combination of Hosoda and Jing doesn't specifically recite the fluoropolymer layer exhibits a bond strength to copper of at least 5 N when heat laminated at a temperature no greater than 300, 250, or 200 ˚C for 30 minutes at a pressure of 54 barr. However, the fluoropolymer composition produced in the combination of Hosoda 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 suggests a composition having fluoropolymer layer exhibits a bond strength to copper of at least 5 N when heat laminated at a temperature no greater than 300, 250, or 200 ˚C for 30 minutes at a pressure of 54 barr. 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 15 : The polymer can comprise HFP units ([0049]). Regarding claim 17 : Hosoda teaches the melting temperature is 270-400 ˚C ([0159] Hosoda), and therefore at least overlaps the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art. In re Peterson , 315 F .3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Claims 16, 18, 20-22, 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosoda et al. (US 2019/0144700) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Jing et al. (WO 2019/239322). Regarding claim s 16, 20 : A blend comprising 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 wherein the TFE includes 100% units of TFE ([0028] Jing) and therefore a greater amount of TFE than the first copolymer in both Jing and Hosoda. 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 s 1 6, 20 of the present invention . Regarding claim 17 : With regards to a blend of fluoropolymer, Hosoda teaches the melting temperature is 270-400 ˚ C ([0159] Hosoda), and Jing teaches the melting temperature of the crystalline fluoropolymer is 100-300 C. Hence, one skilled in the art would conclude the melting temperature of the blend is at most 270-400 ˚C and at least 100 ˚C, and therefore at least overlaps the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art. In re Peterson , 315 F .3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Regarding claim 18 : The crystalline fluoropolymer of Jing is insoluble in fluorinated solvent (p. 12 Jing) including solvent HFE-7500 solvent ( (3-ethoxy-1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-dodecafluoro-2-trifluoromethylhexane) (equivalent to a partially fluorinated ether). Regarding claim 21 : The amount of TFE units and perfluorinated PAVE units range from 90 mol% and 9.99 mol% ([0059] [0046] Hosoda) and therefore the units derived from non-fluorinated or partially fluorinated monomers is at most 0.1 wt%. Regarding claim 22 : The crystalline fluoropolymer contains crystalline submicron fluoropolymer particles (Claim 1 Jing). Regarding claim 23 : The crystalline fluoropolymer of Jing is insoluble in fluorinated solvent (p. 12 Jing). Regarding claim 24 : 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 s 25- 2 6 : 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). Regarding claim 27 : A filler of silica is disclosed ([0230] Hosoda). 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