CTNF 18/561,098 CTNF 77565 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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 applicant regards as his invention. Claims 6-8 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. Claim 6, which depends upon claim 1, recites the limitation "the reactive compound (C)" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Similarly, claims 7 and 8 also recite the limitation "the reactive compound (C)" in line 4, and lines 3-4, respectively; however, given that both claims 7 and 8 depend upon claim 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1-2, 4-9, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Storz (US2024/0182613A1). Storz discloses a vinylbenzyl-based resin composition having a low dielectric constant and a low dielectric dissipation factor suitable as a polymer insulating material for the production of a prepreg, a laminated board for printing wiring board, a molding material, and an adhesive (Abstract, Paragraphs 0001 and 0005), wherein the resin composition comprises (a) a crosslinker selected from (i) a vinylbenzyl indene having a formula (1) as shown in Paragraph 0032 with examples thereof recited in Paragraphs 0036-0037 reading upon the claimed Formula (1), (ii) a vinylbenzyl fluorene having a formula (2) as shown in Paragraph 0033 with examples thereof recited in Paragraph 0038 also reading upon the claimed Formula (1), and (iii) a mixture thereof; and (b) a resin selected from: (i) a polyphenylene ether derivative, (ii) a hydrocarbon thermoplastic, (iii) a compound of formula (3) as described in Paragraphs 0060-0068 with examples thereof including maleimide compounds having a benzene ring in a molecule, and (iv) a mixture thereof (Entire document, particularly as noted above and Abstract, Examples, and Claims); and given that Storz specifically discloses working examples comprising 9,9-bis-(o,m,p-vinylbenzyl)-9H-fluorene, i.e., a vinylbenzyl compound with two vinyl benzyl groups attached to a core fluorene group in the ortho, meta, or para positions (i.e., a hydrocarbon group having 6 or more carbon atoms and containing an aromatic cyclic group as with the claimed “X”) reading upon the claimed Formula (1), mixed with phenyl maleimide, i.e., a maleimide compound having a benzene ring in a molecule and a maleimide group equivalent of 400 g/mol or less as in instant claim 1, and more particularly 200 g/mol or less as in instant claim 2, utilized to produce prepreg (IP2 and IP3) comprising a glass fabric E2116NE (i.e., a fibrous base material as in instant claim 12 as well as a ”support film” as in instant claim 13, Paragraphs 0125-0129), Storz anticipates instant claims 1-2 and 12-13 . With respect to instant claims 4-8, Storz discloses that the resin composition may include the crosslinker (a) in an amount, based on the total weight of the resin composition, of less than about 90% by weight and at least about 25% by weight, or about 30%-90% by weight, of which 0%-100% by weight may be the vinylbenzyl indene of formula (1) and 100%-0% by weight may be the vinylbenzyl fluorene of formula (2), based on the total weight of the crosslinker (a) (Paragraphs 0039-0041); and the resin (b) in an amount, based on the total weight of the resin composition, of less than about 70% by weight and at least 5% by weight, or within a range of 5-40% by weight (Paragraph 0070), of which the compound having the formula (3), e.g. a maleimide compound, may be 0% to about 100% by weight based on the total weight of the (b) resin; and given the working examples disclosed by Storz as shown in Table 1, wherein 50 parts of a (83/17) mixture of two different vinylbenzyl indene compounds is mixed with 30 parts of a vinylbenzyl fluorene as the crosslinker (a), each of which may read upon the instantly claimed compound(s) (B) and/or (C), and 20 parts of a bismaleimide compound as the resin (b), the Examiner takes the position that Storz discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to anticipate instant claims 4-8. With respect to instant claim 9, Storz discloses that the resin composition may further comprise an inorganic filler, thereby anticipating instant claim 9 (Paragraphs 0074-0079). With respect to instant claim 11, the Examiner takes the position that the limitation constitutes intended use of the resin composition and given that the resin composition disclosed by Storz is capable of being cured to provide modulus properties as instantly claimed when cured under some arbitrary conditions, Storz anticipates instant claim 11. With respect to instant claims 14-18, as noted above, Storz discloses that the resin composition may be utilized to produce a laminated board for printing wiring board, wherein more specifically, Storz discloses that one or more sheets of the prepreg containing the resin composition may be laminated with one or more metal foils disposed on at least one surface of the prepreg to form a metal-clad laminate that can be cured and patterned to produce a printed wiring board, wherein multilayer printed wiring boards can be produced by layering and molding a prescribed number of sheets of the patterned laminate layers, bonded together with one or more layers of the resin-impregnated prepregs (Paragraphs 0100-0110), thereby anticipating instant claims 14-18 . 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tohjima (WO2021/100658A1, also published as US2023/0002547A1, which is being utilized by the Examiner as an English language equivalent for the WO document for the below cited sections). Tohjima teaches a compound of formula (1) as shown below and described in Paragraphs 0011-0014 (encompassing the instantly claimed Formula (1) as recited in instant claim 1 and the instantly claimed Formula (2) as recited in instant claim 2) as well as a curable resin composition containing the compound of formula (1) (Paragraph 0014) and a cured product thereof having low dielectric properties and useful for producing a printed wiring substrate, a build-up laminated board, and glass fiber reinforced plastics substrate (Paragraphs 0001 and 0018) . PNG media_image1.png 200 400 media_image1.png Greyscale (1) Tohjima specifically teaches exemplified compounds of formula (1) in the working examples that are each hydrocarbon compounds that read upon the instantly claimed hydrocarbon-based compound (B) represented by the instantly claimed Formula (1) and/or Formula (2) of instant claims 1 and 3, including Example 2 which results in the below compound with n = 1.7; Example 4 which produces the below compound with n = 2.6; Example 6 which produces the below compound with n = 2.3; Example 8 which produces the below compound; and Example 10 which produces the below compound with n = 1.9. PNG media_image2.png 200 400 media_image2.png Greyscale Example 2 PNG media_image3.png 200 400 media_image3.png Greyscale Example 4 PNG media_image4.png 194 396 media_image4.png Greyscale Example 6 PNG media_image5.png 249 666 media_image5.png Greyscale Example 10 PNG media_image6.png 200 400 media_image6.png Greyscale Example 8 Tohjima also teaches that the curable resin composition may contain any known material as a curable resin other than the compound represented by the formula (1), with examples of the (other) curable resin including a phenol resin such as any known polyphenylene ether (PPE) compound (as in instant claim 6), an epoxy resin (as in instant claim 6), an amine resin, an active alkene-containing resin, and a cyanate ester resin (as in instant claim 6); using one kind of these resins or a plurality thereof in combination (Paragraphs 0061, 0069, and 0072-0073), with specific examples of the active alkene-containing resin including maleimide compounds as recited in Paragraph 0081 including 4,4′-diphenylmethanebismaleimide (i.e., a maleimide compound having a benzene ring in a molecule and having a maleimide group equivalent of about 179 g/mol reading upon the instantly claimed maleimide compound (A) as recited in instant claims 1-2) and m-phenylenebismaleimide (i.e., a maleimide compound having a benzene ring in a molecule and having a maleimide group equivalent of about 134.11 g/mol thus also reading upon the instantly claimed maleimide compound (A) as recited in instant claims 1-2). Tohjima teaches that the usage amount of the (other) curable resin is preferably 10 times by mass or less, more preferably 5 times by mass or less, and particularly preferably 3 times by mass or less relative to the usage amount of the compound represented by the formula (1), and a lower limit of preferably 0.5 times by mass or more, and more preferably 1 time by mass or more (Paragraph 0070), wherein preferably the content of the PPE compound (e.g., “a reactive compound (C) that reacts with at least one of the maleimide compound (A) or the hydrocarbon-based compound (B)” as in instant claim 5 and more particularly “a polyphenylene ether compound” as in instant claim 6) is 10 to 90 mass %, and more preferably 20 to 80 mass%, based on the total mass of the curable resin components (Paragraph 0078, wherein when utilized in combination with any of the maleimide compounds of Paragraph 0081 reading upon the claimed maleimide compound (A) as taught by Tohjima, the amounts taught by Tohjima overlap and thus render obvious the claimed mass contents as recited in instant claims 4 and 7-8). Hence, given that Tohjima specifically teaches exemplified compounds reading upon the instantly claimed hydrocarbon-based compound (B) as represented by the claimed Formulae (1) and (2) of instant claims 1 and 3, and clearly teaches that said compounds can be mixed with maleimide compounds reading upon the claimed maleimide compound (A), (A-1), and (A-2) as recited in instant claims 1-2, and preferably a curable PPE compound as in instant claims 5-6, in amounts as in instant claims 4 and 7-8, to form a curable resin composition, the Examiner takes the position that the instantly claimed invention as recited in instant claims 1-8 would have been obvious over the teachings of Tohjima given that it is prima facie obviousness to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. With respect to instant claim 9, Tohjima teaches that inorganic fillers may be added to the curable resin composition, if necessary, thereby rendering instant claim 9 obvious over the teachings of Tohjima (Paragraph 0098). With respect to instant claim 10, Tohjima teaches that the curable resin composition may contain a phosphorus-containing compound as a flame retardation-imparting component, thereby rendering instant claim 10 obvious over the teachings of Tohjima (Paragraph 0095). With respect to instant claim 11, although Tohjima does not specifically teach that “a cured product of the resin composition” has a ratio of storage modulus properties as instantly claimed, given that the claimed limitation is based upon the “cured” composition and that the curable resin composition taught by Tohjima is capable of providing said storage modulus properties, particularly given that Tohjima teaches and/or suggests the same components and in contents as instantly claimed such that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect similar properties and/or to utilize routine experimentation to determine the optimum content of each curable component to provide the desired properties for a particular end use, the Examiner takes the position that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 11 would have been obvious over the teachings of Tohjima. With respect to instant claims 12-18, Tohjima teaches that the curable resin composition may be utilized to produce a prepreg by impregnating the curable composition into a fibrous base material as in instant claim 12 (also reading upon the broadly claimed support film of instant claim 13) and cured product thereof; and can also be used to produce a film that can be used as an interlayer insulating layer in a multilayer substrate by coating on a release film as a “support” film as in instant claim 13 and performing B-stage formation to produce a sheet-shaped adhesive layer (Paragraphs 0105-0107), thereby reading upon the claimed prepreg and film as recited in instant claims 12 and 13, respectively. Further, with respect to instant claims 14-18, Tohjima teaches that the curable resin composition which produces a “cured product thereof has excellent properties in high heat resistance and low dielectric properties” (Paragraph 0018) can be utilized as an insulating material for electric or electronic compounds (Paragraph 0149), or as an insulating layer in a multilayer substrate as noted above; and also teaches that one or more of the prepregs can be utilized to produce a laminated board that can be used as a metal foil-clad laminated board by laminating with a layer made of a metal foil, such as a copper foil; and given that Tohjima also teaches that the laminated board may be utilized for an electric and electronic device, particularly as a printed wiring board (Entire document, particularly Paragraphs 0101, 0105-0110), the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 12-18 would have been obvious over the teachings of Tohjima. Alternatively, claims 4-8, as well as claim 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Storz as applied to claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-18 above, and further discussed below. The teachings of Storz are discussed in detail above and incorporated herein by reference, and although the Examiner is of the position that the reference is anticipatory with respect to the claimed reactive compound (C) and parts by mass contents as recited in instant claims 4-8 for the reasons discussed above, the Examiner alternatively takes the position that the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 4-8 would have been obvious over the teachings of Storz given that one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize any of the disclosed crosslinker(s) (a) and combinations thereof, with any of the disclosed resin(s) (b) and combinations thereof as taught by Storz in any amounts within the ranges as taught by Storz which read upon the instantly claimed compounds and contents thereof as recited in instant claims 4-8, given that it prima facie obviousness to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. With respect to instant claim 10, although Storz teaches that the resin composition may further comprise flame retardants in Paragraph 0082, Storz does not specifically teach the incorporation of a “phosphorus-based flame retardant” as instantly claimed. However, given that “a phosphorus-based flame retardant” is an obvious species of flame retardant in the art (as evidenced by Tohjima discussed above), the Examiner takes the position that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant 10 would have been obvious over the teachings of Storz given that it is prima facie obviousness to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results and/or prima facie obviousness to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results . 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. 08-35 AIA Claim s 1-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 and 3-18 of copending Application No. 18/561065 (reference application, printed as US2024/0270885A1) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending claim 1 is similarly directed to a resin composition comprising a maleimide compound (A) and a hydrocarbon-based compound (B) of the same Formula (1) as instantly claimed, and given that the maleimide compound (A) of copending claim 1 has an indane structure which includes a benzene ring in a molecule thereof, the only difference between copending claim 1 and instant claim 1 is that copending claim 1 does not specifically recite that the maleimide compound (A) has a maleimide group equivalent of 400 g/mol or less. However, given that a basic indane structure with one or maleimide groups directly attached thereto would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and would have maleimide group equivalent as in instant claims 1-2, the Examiner takes the position that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 1-2 would have been obvious over copending claim 1. With respect to instant claims 3-10 and 12-18, copending claims 4-11 and 12-18, respectively, recite all of the limitations thereof and hence instant claims 3-10 and 12-18 would have been obvious over copending claims 4-11 and 12-18, respectively. With respect to instant claim 11, given that the claimed limitation is based upon a cured product of the resin composition and that the resin composition of copending claim 1 comprises the same components as in instant claim 1 from which instant claim 11 depends, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the resin composition of copending claim 1 to be capable of providing similar properties wherein one skilled in the art would have been motivated to determine the optimum content of each component to provide the desired properties for a particular end use. Hence, absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, instant claim 11 would have been obvious over copending claim 1, or copending claim 5 which recites parts by mass with respect to (A) and (B) . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 08-37 AIA Claim s 1-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-2 and 5-18 of copending Application No. 18/561591 (printed as US2024/0263003A1) in view of Storz. Copending claim 1 is directed to a resin composition comprising a hydrocarbon-based compound (A) represented by the same Formula (1) as instantly claimed and a styrenic polymer (B) different from (A), and although copending claim 6 recites that the resin composition further includes a reactive compound (C) with copending claim 7 reciting that the reactive compound (C) includes at least one selected from a group that includes a bismaleimide (as well as other reactive compounds as recited in instant claim 6), copending claim 1 or copending claim 6 does not recite that the resin composition includes a maleimide compound having a benzene ring in a molecule and having a maleimide group equivalent of 400 g/mol or less as in instant claim 1, particularly 200 g/mol or less as in instant claim 2. However, given that such maleimide compounds are known to be utilized in the art with similar hydrocarbon-based compounds of the claimed Formula (1) in place of and/or with a styrene-based copolymer (as in copending claim 1) as evidenced by Storz (Abstract, Paragraphs 0032-0038, 0055, and 0060-0065), the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 1-2 would have been obvious over copending claim 1 or copending claim 7 in view of Storz given that it is prima facie obviousness to simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results and/or prima facie obviousness to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. With respect to instant claim 3, copending claim 2 recites the same Formula (2), and hence instant claim 3 would have been obvious over copending claim 2. With respect to instant claims 4-10 and 12-18, copending claims 5-11 and 12-18, respectively, recite similar limitations thereof, and given that one skilled in the art would have been motivated to determine the optimum content of each component to provide the desired properties such as storage modulus as in instant claim 11, based upon a particular end use of the composition, with Storz teaching similar contents (as discussed in detail above and incorporated herein by reference), instant claims 4-10 and 12-18 would have been obvious over copending claims 5-11 and 12-18, respectively, in view of Storz. Further, with respect to instant claim 11, given that the claimed limitation is based upon a cured product of the resin composition and that the resin composition of copending claim 1 or copending claim 7 in view of Storz comprises the same components as in instant claim 1 from which instant claim 11 depends, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the resin composition of copending claim 1 or copending claim 7 in view of Storz to be capable of providing similar properties wherein one skilled in the art would have been motivated to determine the optimum content of each component to provide the desired properties for a particular end use. Hence, absent any clear showing of criticality and/unexpected results, instant claim 11 would have been obvious over copending claim 1 or copending claim 7 in view of Storz . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. 08-37 AIA Claim s 1-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-2 and 4-18 of copending Application No. 18/561614 (printed as US2024/0279457A1) in view of Storz. Copending claim 1 is similarly directed to a resin composition comprising a maleimide compound (A) and a hydrocarbon-based compound (B) of the same Formula (1) as instantly claimed, wherein the maleimide compound (A) is recited as having at least one selected from an alkyl group having 6 or more carbon atoms or an alkylene group having 6 or more carbon atoms, with copending claim 2 further reciting that the maleimide compound (A) has a group represented by Formula (2) or Formula (3), each of which include a benzene ring, however, copending claims 1-2 do not recite that the maleimide compound (A) has a maleimide group equivalent of 400 g/mol or less as instantly claimed, or more particularly 200 g/mol or less as in instant claim 2. However, given that such maleimide compounds are known to be utilized in the art with similar hydrocarbon-based compounds as instantly claimed as evidenced by Storz (Abstract, Paragraphs 0032-0038, 0055, and 0060-0065), the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 1-2 would have been obvious over copending claim 1 or copending claim 2 in view of Storz given that it is prima facie obviousness to simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. With respect to instant claims 3-10 and 12-18, copending claims 4-11 and 12-18, respectively, recite all of the limitations thereof and hence instant claims 3-10 and 12-18 would have been obvious over copending claims 4-11 and 12-18, respectively, in view of Storz. With respect to instant claim 11, given that the claimed limitation is based upon a cured product of the resin composition and that the resin composition of copending claim 1 in view of Storz comprises the same components as in instant claim 1 from which instant claim 11 depends, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the resin composition of copending claim 1 in view of Storz to be capable of providing similar properties wherein one skilled in the art would have been motivated to determine the optimum content of each component to provide the desired properties for a particular end use. Hence, absent any clear showing of criticality and/unexpected results, instant claim 11 would have been obvious over copending claim 1 in view of Storz . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Citation of pertinent prior art 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Liao (US2020/0291228A1) teaches a resin composition comprising: (A) a polyphenylene ether resin, (B) a constituent with a maleimide structure, and may further include a polyfunctional styrenic compound such as 1,3-bis(p-vinylphenylethyl)benzene (e.g., a compound having a benzene core with two p-vinylphenylethyl groups attached thereto). Amou (US2002/0161091A1) teaches a low dielectric loss tangent resin composition comprising a crosslinking agent having a plurality of styrene groups with a specific example thereof having a structure as shown below and a high polymer such as a polymer of N-vinylphenylmaleimide . PNG media_image7.png 77 278 media_image7.png Greyscale Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Thursdays from 10:00AM-5:00PM. 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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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. /MONIQUE R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787 Application/Control Number: 18/561,098 Page 2 Art Unit: 1787 Application/Control Number: 18/561,098 Page 3 Art Unit: 1787 Application/Control Number: 18/561,098 Page 4 Art Unit: 1787 Application/Control Number: 18/561,098 Page 5 Art Unit: 1787 Application/Control Number: 18/561,098 Page 6 Art Unit: 1787 Application/Control Number: 18/561,098 Page 7 Art Unit: 1787 Application/Control Number: 18/561,098 Page 8 Art Unit: 1787 Application/Control Number: 18/561,098 Page 9 Art Unit: 1787 Application/Control Number: 18/561,098 Page 10 Art Unit: 1787 Application/Control Number: 18/561,098 Page 11 Art Unit: 1787 Application/Control Number: 18/561,098 Page 12 Art Unit: 1787 Application/Control Number: 18/561,098 Page 13 Art Unit: 1787 Application/Control Number: 18/561,098 Page 14 Art Unit: 1787 Application/Control Number: 18/561,098 Page 15 Art Unit: 1787 Application/Control Number: 18/561,098 Page 16 Art Unit: 1787
Prosecution Insights