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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 10-251042 to Hikata et al. hereinafter “Hikata”.
Hikata is directed to filler powder comprising aluminum oxide ceramic on the surface of a crystalline silica particle [Means for solving].
Regarding claims 1 – 2 and 4, Hikata teaches two compositions in Table 1, Trials 6 – 7, comprising 97 % amorphous silica particle and 3% alumina fine particles (Al2O3). The crystal phase of the silica is Cristobalite and less than 1 % mullite (includes zero). The alumina crystal phase is less than 5 % (3 %). See the translated Table 1 for Trials 6 – 7 reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
457
401
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hikata is silent as to the elemental ratio of aluminum to silicon as determined by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy is 0.01 to 5.0. However, the actual calculated aluminum / silicon ratio is 0.036. This is within the claimed range. (97 g silica = 1.614 moles of Si, 3 g alumina = 0.0294 moles alumina, since there are 2 Al per Al2O3, moles of Al = 2 X 0.0294 = 0.0588 moles of Al). 0.0588 / 1.614 = 0.036. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill that a test designed to measure the Al / Si ratio would be at least close to the actual calculated ratio of these elements.
As to claim 3, Hikata teaches that the average particle diameter is 45 um [0028 – 0029].
Regarding claim 4, Hikata teaches a composition in Table 1, Trial 1, comprising 99 % amorphous silica particle and 1% alumina fine particles (Al2O3) in the mullite crystal form. The crystal phase of the silica is Cristobalite and the crystal phase of the alumina is mullite. See the translated Table 1 for Trials 1 - 5 reproduced below.
PNG
media_image2.png
483
661
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The actual calculated aluminum / silicon ratio for Trial 1 is 0.0118. This is within the claimed range. (99 g silica = 1.6478 moles of Si, 1 g alumina = 0.0196 moles alumina, since there are 2 Al per Al2O3, moles of Al = 2 X 0.0098 = 0.0196 moles of Al). 0.0196 / 1.6478 = 0.0118. This is within the claimed range.
As to claims 5 - 6, the method for producing the oxide composite particles comprises mixing the silica and alumina powders where the powders have a diameter of 1 um or less [0015]. The mixed powders are then preferably heated1400 – 1500C for 5 – 10 hrs. [0016]. The amorphous silica particles are in the form of cristobalite and the alumina fine powder is fixed to the surface of particles to form a coating film [0016].
Regarding claims 7 – 8, Hikata discloses that the oxide composite particles are mixed with epoxy resin at a concentration of 50% (1/1) [0032].
As to claim 9, barring any information to the contrary the resin composition of [0032] is capable of use on high frequency substrates.
Prior Art of Record
See US 8278241 B2 to Ackerman.
See US 20080269361 A1 to Soyama.
See US 20200399169 A1 to Nogami.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER A. SALAMON whose telephone number is 571-270-3018. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 6PM.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
PAS 7/7/26
/PETER A SALAMON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights