CTNF 18/579,647 CTNF 95041 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 Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recited “wherein the core shell fluoropolymer is insoluble in fluorinated solvent selected from partially fluorinated ether, 3-ethoxy perfluorinated 2-methyl hexane, or 3-methoxy perfluorinated 4-methyl..” should be --wherein the core shell fluoropolymer is insoluble in fluorinated solvent selected from partially fluorinated ether, 3-ethoxy perfluorinated 2-methyl hexane, or 3-methoxy perfluorinated 4-methyl .--. Appropriate correction is required. 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-6 and 10-20 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 1 recites the broad recitation of at least 80 wt.% or greater of polymerized units of tetrafluoroethylene, and the claim also recites at least 85, 90, 95, 96, 97, 98, or 99 wt.% or greater of polymerized units of tetrafluoroethylene which are 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. Claims 2-6 and 10-20 are rejected likewise as depending on claim 1. Claim 2 recites the broad recitation of at least 0.3 wt-% of polymerized units comprising a perfluorinated alkyl ether, and the claim also recites at least 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, or 0.8 wt-% of polymerized units comprising a perfluorinated alkyl ether which are 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. Claim 18 recites the broad recitation of a dielectric constant (Dk) of less than 2.75, and the claim also recites 2.70, 2.65, 2.60, 2.55, 2.50, 2.45, 2.40, 2.35, 2.30, 2.25, 2.20, 2.15, 2.10, 2.05, 2.00, or 1.95 which are the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 18 recites the broad recitation of a dielectric loss (Df) of less than 0.01, and the claim also recites 0.009, 0.008, 0.007, 0.006, 0.005, 0.004, 0.003, 0.002, 0.001, 0.0009, 0.0008, 0.0007, 0.0006,or 0.0005 which are 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. 07-36 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. 07-36-01 AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 5 recited “the comonomer has the general formula R f -O-(CF 2 ) n -CF=CF 2 wherein n is 1 or 0 and R f is a perfluoroalkyl or perfluoroether group”. The general formula R f -O-(CF 2 ) n -CF=CF 2 does not contain sulfur oxide which is required for the comonomer in claim 1 . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 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. 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-6 and 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atsumi et al (JP 2020158720 A, machine translation is referenced herein) in view of Dadalas et al (US 20050090601 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Atsumi teaches a laminate material for coated fabric (e.g., glass fabric [0038]) in a printed circuit board [0040]. As evidenced by the applicant, printed circuit board reads on the claimed electronic telecommunication article [0144 PG PUB]. Atsumi teaches that the material comprises core-shell particles having a core portion of a tetrafluoroethylene polymer (TFE polymer) and a shell portion of a fluoropolymer (F polymer) [0005]. The content of the TFE type polymer in the core part is preferably at least 80 mass%, more preferably 100 mass% [0010]. The content of the F polymer in the shell portion is preferably 80% by mass or more, and more preferably 100% by mass [0014]. The amount of the TFE polymer contained in the composite particles is preferably from 80 to 90 mass%; the amount of the F polymer contained in the composite particles is preferably from 10 to 20 mass% [0019]. the F polymer contains 0.5 to 10 mol% of the unit based on perfluoro (alkyl vinyl ether) (PAVE) including perfluoro methyl vinyl ether CF 2 =CFOCF 3 (PMVE) [0015-0016]. The laminate reads on the claimed fluoropolymer layer. Based on the above teaching, the examiner calculated that the composite particle contains 96.9-99.9 wt% of TFE unit and 0.08-3.11 wt% of PMVE unit. The 96.9-99.9 wt% of TFE unit meets the claimed at least 80, 85, 90, 95, 96, 97, 98, or 99 wt.% or greater of polymerized units of tetrafluoroethylene. Atsumi does not teach the claimed no greater than 1 wt.% of polymerized units of comonomer comprising a functional group selected from sulfur oxide. In the same field of endeavor, Dadalas teaches core-shell PTFE particles comprising TFE monomer and an ionic comonomer CF 2 =CF-O-(CF 2 ) 2 -SO 2 F [0018, 0029]. The ionic comonomer should generally not exceed 1% by weight of the total amount of TFE [0032]. The PTFE particles are used for coatings on glass fabrics due to its weather resistance, heat resistance and chemical resistance [0003, 0062]. Atsumi’s PMVE and Dadalas’ CF 2 =CF-O-(CF 2 ) 2 -SO 2 F are similar in structure and both are used in similar concentration as a comonomer in core-shell PTFE particles applied on glass fabrics. The benefits of weather resistance, heat resistance and chemical resistance in Dadalas’ PTFE are also desirable with Atsumi’s PTFE [0013, 0034]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to either substitute Atsumi’s PMVE with Dadalas’ CF 2 =CF-O-(CF 2 ) 2 -SO 2 F or combine the two in Atsumi’s PTFE. It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose where the equivalence is recognized by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.06. It has also been established that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious ( Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp ., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). See MPEP 2144.07. CF 2 =CF-O-(CF 2 ) 2 -SO 2 F reads on the claimed comonomer comprising a functional group selected from sulfur oxide. Its amount of 0.08-3.11 wt% or not exceed 1% by weight overlaps or meets the claimed no greater than 1 wt.%. Regarding claim 2, Atsumi’s 0.08-3.11 wt% of PMVE overlaps the claimed at least 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, or 0.8 wt-% of polymerized units comprising a perfluorinated alkyl ether. Regarding claims 3-5, Atsumi teaches that the core of the PTFE particles is a TFE-based polymer [0010] which can be a copolymer of TFE and PAVE [0011]. The PAVE include CF 2 =CFOCF 3 (PMVE) [0016] which reads on the claimed perfluorinated comonomer. Regarding claim 6, the recited MFI is a property of the product. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). See MPEP 2112.01. Since the prior art teaches the same product as the current invention, the recited property is expected to be present. Regarding claim 10, the CF 2 =CF-O-(CF 2 ) 2 -SO 2 F contains the claimed the sulfur oxide groups are selected from -SO 2 X 1 , wherein X 1 is F. Regarding claim 11, Atsumi in view of Dadalas teaches that the core of the composite particles is a TFE-based polymer which can contain up to 100% of TFE; and the shell contains F polymer which can be CF 2 =CF-O-(CF 2 ) 2 -SO 2 F, as stated above. Therefore, the shell has a higher amount of functional groups than the core. Regarding claim 12, the recited “the fluoropolymer layer or core shell fluoropolymer layer has a higher adhesion to copper metal than a random fluoropolymer having the same composition” is a property of the product. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). See MPEP 2112.01. Since the prior art teaches the same product as the current invention, the recited property is expected to be present. Regarding claim 13, the recited “the core shell fluoropolymer layer exhibits a bond strength to copper of at least 5 N when heat laminated at a temperature no greater than 360°C for 30 minutes at a pressure of 54 barr” is a property of the product. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). See MPEP 2112.01. Since the prior art teaches the same product as the current invention, the recited property is expected to be present. Regarding claim 14, Atsumi teaches that the F polymer contains unit based on HFP [0009]. Regarding claim 15, the recited “the core shell fluoropolymer is semicrystalline having a melting point after a second heating of greater than 320°C” is a property of the product. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). See MPEP 2112.01. Since the prior art teaches the same product as the current invention, the recited property is expected to be present. Regarding claims 16-17, the recited “the core shell fluoropolymer is insoluble in fluorinated solvent selected from partially fluorinated ether, 3-ethoxy perfluorinated 2-methyl hexane, or 3-methoxy perfluorinated 4-methy” and “the fluorinated solvent is a partially fluorinated ether, 3-ethoxy perfluorinated 2-methyl hexane, or 3-methoxy perfluorinated 4-methyl “ is a property of the product. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). See MPEP 2112.01. Since the prior art teaches the same product as the current invention, the recited property is expected to be present. Regarding claim 18, the recited “the fluoropolymer has i) a dielectric constant (Dk) of less than 2.75, 2.70, 2.65, 2.60, 2.55, 2.50, 2.45, 2.40, 2.35, 2.30, 2.25, 2.20, 2.15, 2.10, 2.05,2.00,or 1.95; ii) a dielectric loss (Df) of less than 0.01, 0.009, 0.008, 0.007, 0.006, 0.005, 0.004, 0.003, 0.002, 0.001, 0.0009, 0.0008, 0.0007, 0.0006,or0.0005; or a combination thereof” is a property of the product. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). See MPEP 2112.01. Since the prior art teaches the same product as the current invention, the recited property is expected to be present. Regarding claim 19, Atsumi teaches that a dispersion of the composite particles is applied to a substrate [0040]. Therefore, the substrate comprises the core shell fluoropolymer. Regarding claim 20, Atsumi teaches the printed circuit board as stated above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANGTIAN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-1621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday. 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 on (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. /JIANGTIAN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762 Application/Control Number: 18/579,647 Page 2 Art Unit: 1762 Application/Control Number: 18/579,647 Page 3 Art Unit: 1762 Application/Control Number: 18/579,647 Page 4 Art Unit: 1762 Application/Control Number: 18/579,647 Page 5 Art Unit: 1762 Application/Control Number: 18/579,647 Page 6 Art Unit: 1762 Application/Control Number: 18/579,647 Page 7 Art Unit: 1762 Application/Control Number: 18/579,647 Page 8 Art Unit: 1762 Application/Control Number: 18/579,647 Page 9 Art Unit: 1762 Application/Control Number: 18/579,647 Page 11 Art Unit: 1762 Application/Control Number: 18/579,647 Page 12 Art Unit: 1762 Application/Control Number: 18/579,647 Page 13 Art Unit: 1762
Prosecution Insights