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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 7-8 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.
Regarding claim 7, it is not clear what is meant by “general” spherical silica. The term “general” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “general” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 8, firstly, there is a lack of antecedent basis for the recitation of “general spherical silica” in claim 8 and it is not clear if the claim was intended to depend from claim 7 (where antecedent basis can be found). Secondly, it is not clear what is meant by “general” spherical silica. The term “general” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “general” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan et al. (WO 2022134230 A1; using Clarivate Analytics machine translation for English language citations) in view of Li et al. (CN 113248943 A; using Clarivate Analytics machine translation for English language citations).
Regarding claims 1-4, Guan teaches thermosetting resin compositions comprising (A) a styrene-butadiene-styrene triblock (instant vinyl-containing elastomer (instant claims 1-2), (B) a thermosetting polyphenylene ether resin, (C) a coupling agent (abstract; pg2, top), and may further comprise (D) a free radical initiator (pg5, top), (E) a co-crosslinking agent (pg5, bottom), and further fillers and flame retardants (pg6), and other optional additives (pg7, top).
Guan teaches the (A) styrene-butadiene-styrene triblock copolymer has a number average molecular weight of 1,000 to 6,000 (pg3) (instant claim 3), a styrene content of 10-60 wt% (butadiene remainder), and a content of 1,2-oriented butadiene of 90 wt% or more of total diene (pg3, bottom)(1,4-remainder (instant claim 4)). Guan teaches that for a total (A)+(B) of 100 parts, the amount of the SBS triblock (A) is 10-90 parts by weight, the amount of polyphenylene ether resin (B) is 10-90 parts by weight (pg3), and the amount of co-crosslinking agent (E) is 3-60 parts by weight (pg5, bottom).
Guan further teach that, for a total (A)+(B) of 100 parts, the coupling agent (C) is 0.1-5 parts by weight (pg4, bottom), the flame retardant is present from 5-80 parts by weight and is a halogen-free flame retardant (pg6), and the filler is present from 10-300 parts and includes spherical silica, hollow silica, etc. (pg6, top).
Guan teaches the fillers include hollow silica but does not specifically teach said hollow silica having a specific gravity between 0.4 and 0.6 g/cm3 and a D50 between 2.0 and 3.0 µm. However, Li teaches hollow silica powders having an average particle diameter of 0.5 to 100 µm and a specific gravity of 0.6 to 1.8 (abstract; pg2) are advantageous for their inherently low dielectric loss and dielectric constant properties (pg2). Li further teaches the specific gravity can be reduced below 0.6 by altering the outer wall thickness of the hollow sphere (pg3, bottom) and teaches readily grading to remove particle greater than 1, 3, 5, 10 or 20 µm (pg2, bottom). Li teaches such particles are suitable for use in combination with resins including aromatic polyethers (pg2) and may also be surface treated (pg3, top). Li and Guan are analogous art and are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely resin compositions utilizing hollow silica particles. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the hollow silica particles of Li as the hollow silica particles of Guan and would have been motivated to do so as Guan invites hollow silica and further as Li teaches the noted particles have inherently low dielectric loss and dielectric constant properties.
Guan teaches the composition is such that a cured product thereof has low dielectric constant (Dk), and low dielectric loss (Df) but does not specifically teach desired ranges thereof beyond ‘low’. Further, Guan teaches the composition comprising the claimed components, present in the claimed amounts, and Li renders obvious hollow silica particles having low dielectric properties. The instant specification teaches that a composition as claimed, having the claimed components of the claimed identities present in the claimed amounts, will result in a composition that, when cured, will have a Dk between 2.75 and 3.05 and a Df of less than 0.002, when measured at 10GHz (instant original specification, [0007], [0018]). It is noted that 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 (see In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). “Where 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.”; MPEP 2112.01)).
Regarding claim 6, Guan in view of Li renders obvious the composition as set forth above. Guan further teaches the co-crosslinking agent (E) is selected from triallyl cyanurate, triallyl isocyanate, divinylbenzene, etc. (pg5, bottom).
Regarding claims 10-12, Guan in view of Li renders obvious the composition as set forth above. Guan further teaches impregnating a base material with the resin composition (pg7), teaches prepregs (pg8), and teaches metal foil-clad laminates (pg8).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan et al. (WO 2022134230 A1; using Clarivate Analytics machine translation for English language citations) in view of Li et al. (CN 113248943 A; using Clarivate Analytics machine translation for English language citations) and further in view of Aoude et al. (US PGPub 2020/0296837).
Guan in view of Li render obvious the composition as set forth in claim 1 above. Guan does not specifically teach the hollow silica filler as surface-modified. It is noted that Li teaches the above obvious hollow silica fillers can be suitable surface treated with coupling agents (pg3, top). Aoude teaches polymer composites, suitable for laminates, comprising a cross-linkable polymer and dielectric fillers (abstract; [0002]; [0019]; [0031]). Aoude teaches the dielectric fillers include hollow-spherical particles of silica ([0034]) and teaches it is advantageous to surface treat the filler particles in order to allow for better polymer incorporation, wherein the surface treating includes (meth)acrylates, vinyls, etc. ([0035]). Aoude and Guan are analogous art and are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely crosslinkable resin compositions comprising hollow silica fillers, suitable for forming laminates. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to surface treat as taught by Aoude the hollow silica of Guan and would have been motivated to do so as Aoude teaches surface treating is advantageous to improve filler-polymer interaction.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan et al. (WO 2022134230 A1; using Clarivate Analytics machine translation for English language citations) in view of Li et al. (CN 113248943 A; using Clarivate Analytics machine translation for English language citations) and further in view of Hu et al. (US PGPub 2021/0309852).
Guan in view of Li render obvious the composition as set forth in claim 1 above. Guan further teaches the total amount of filler materials is 10-300 parts by weight per 100 parts (A)+(B) and teaches mixtures of fillers may be selected including spherical silica and hollow silica (pg6, top).
Guan does not specifically teach the spherical silica (instant ‘general’ spherical silica) having a specific gravity between 2.0 ant 2.5 g/cm3, a D50 between 2.0 and 3.0 µm, and an amount of 50-95 phr. However, Hu teaches similar resin compositions comprising polyphenylene ether resins and inorganic filler combinations (abstract), suitable for forming prepregs, laminates, etc. ([0002]), wherein cured products have low dissipation factor and low dielectric constant properties ([0019]-[0021]). Hu teaches spherical silica having particle sizes between 0.5 and 4.5 µm and a specific gravity between 2.1 and 2.3 g/cm3 is a preferred silica filler for such compositions, and teaches when used in combination with other fillers the spherical silica is present in a 1:2 to 5:2 ratio ([0048]). Hu and Guan are analogous art and are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polyphenylene ether resin based compositions suitable for forming prepregs and laminates having low dielectric constant and low dissipation factor properties. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include the spherical silica fillers of Hu in the fillers of Guan and would have been motivated to do so as Guan invites both combinations of fillers and spherical fillers and further as Hu teaches spherical silica filler having the noted particle sizes, specific gravity, and relative amount, contributes to cured products having improved properties including dielectric constant, dissipation factor, peel strength, thermal resistance, etc. ([0006]; [0020]-[0027]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan et al. (WO 2022134230 A1; using Clarivate Analytics machine translation for English language citations) in view of Li et al. (CN 113248943 A; using Clarivate Analytics machine translation for English language citations) and further in view of Arisawa et al. (JP 2019023263 A; using Clarivate Analytics machine translation for English language citations).
Guan in view of Li render obvious the compositions as set forth in claim 1 above. As noted, Guan teaches halogen-free phosphorous-based flame retardants and further teaches selecting from known, commercially available products (pg6). Guan does not specifically teach a flame retardant having the structure of formula (I). However, Arisawa teaches similar resin compositions comprising polyphenylene ether resins and silica filler, crosslinkers, and further comprising flame retardants (abstract), wherein the compositions are suitable for forming prepregs, metal-clad laminates, etc. (pg1). Arisawa teaches the flame retardants that are incompatible with the polyphenylene ether resin and crosslinker combination are preferred, and specifically teaches diphenylphosphine oxide flame retardants result in compositions having superior flame retardancy, excellent dielectric properties, heat resistance, interlayer adhesion, moldability, chemical resistance etc. (pg9). Arisawa exemplifies paraxylene bisdiphenylphosphine oxide (PQ-60 manufactured by Soichi Kako Co. Ltd) as a suitable incompatible diphenylenephosphine oxide flame retardant. Arisawa and Guan are analogous art and are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely crosslinkable polyphenylene ether resin compositions comprising silica fillers which are suitable for forming prepregs and metal-clad laminates. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the diphenylphosphine oxide flame retardants of Arisawa as the halogen-free phosphorous-based flame retardants of Guan and would have been motivated to do so as Guan invites the inclusion of any suitable, commercially available products and further as Arisawa teaches the diphenylenephosphine oxide flame retardants, PQ-60 being exemplified, result in compositions having superior flame retardancy, excellent dielectric properties, heat resistance, interlayer adhesion, moldability, chemical resistance etc.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANE L STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM to 3:30 PM.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/JANE L STANLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights