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
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 1 – 6 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.
With regard to claim 1, the claim recites “at least part of fibrous bodies among the plurality of fibrous bodies has areas with a thickness of 0.1 um or more and 3.0 um or less.” Applicant’s specification fails to clarify which dimension of a fibrous body is the “thickness.” Considering Applicant recites another dimension of a fibrous body as length, one of ordinary skill in the art that would assume the “thickness” of a fibrous body refers to the diameter in at least one dimension of the cross section of the fibrous body (e.g. wherein the fibrous body is an oblong platelet). However, clarification is requested.
Claims 2 – 6 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore also rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imamura et al. (WO 2020/213669 A1), in view of Morgan et al. (CA 1339337) (1998) and Kasagi et al. (US 2019/0074104 A1).
*US 2022/0220265 A1 is cited herein as the English language equivalent of WO 2020/213669 A1
With regard to claim 1, Imamura et al. teach a substrate (i.e. “dielectric sheet”) composed of fluororesin, such as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (paragraph [0003]). To improve the properties, substrate (dielectric) comprises granular inorganic filler (P0003). When the total of the resin and the filler is 100 parts by mass, the loading amount of the filler in the composite, which is typically from 10 parts by mass to 90 parts by mass, preferably 50 parts by mass or more and 65 parts by mass or less (paragraph [0059]). A mass ratio of 65:35 is 1.85, which is greater than 1.3.
The average primary particle diameter of the non-porous inorganic fine particles is preferably 0.3 µm or more and 5 µm or less (paragraph [0068]), which includes Applicant’s claimed range of 0.3 – 4.0 µm. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Examples of inorganic filler silica or glass balloons (i.e., “spherical”) (paragraph [0058]).
The fluororesin is fibrillated as fibrils (i.e., “fibrous bodies”) which are oriented in one direction or a plurality of directions. The fibrillation or the like of the fluororesin may be recognized through the observation of its surface with a SEM or the like (paragraph [0052]).
Imamura et al. do not teach at least part of fibrous bodies among the plurality of fibrous bodies has areas with a thickness of 0.1 µm or more and 3.0 µm or less and a length of 50 µm or more and 5000 µm or less.
Morgan et al. teach a blend of plastic and fibrillated PTFE. The resulting blend has improved tear strength and abrasion resistance (i.e., “improved durability” described throughout Applicant’s specification) (pg. 5, lines 3 – 4). When blended into an elastomer or a plastic resin by a procedure that involves shearing action, the modified polytetrafluoroethylene resin will be present in the form of platelets that are roughly oblong (fiber-shape), having a size of between 2 – 5 µm in thickness and about 10 – 500 µm in length, which overlaps Applicant’s claimed range of 50 – 5,000 µm (pg. 4, lines 19 – 27).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Morgan et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the fibrillated PTFE having an elongated platelet (i.e. fiber) form, wherein the fiber has a thickness of 2 – 5 µm and a length of about 10 – 500 µm, in order to achieve a plastic composition of desired tear strength and abrasion resistance (i.e. good durability).
Imamura et al. do not teach an average space between the areas of the at least part of fibrous bodies is 10 µm or less. (See Applicant’s specification, paragraph [0023] and L1 of Fig. 18 regarding the definition of “average space between the at least part of fibrous bodies”). Imamura et al. do not teach the arrangement of the PFTE fibrils or the method of manufacturing the PTFE substrate to achieve the PTFE fibrils observable by SEM.
Kasagi et al. teach an insulating (i.e. dielectric) resin material comprising polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) fibrillated into fibrils (i.e. fibrous bodies) (paragraph [0063] and multidirectionally oriented in a three-dimensional network (paragraphs [0014], [0018], [0034], [0066]). Fibrillation of the PTFE particles and the three-dimensional network of multidirectional fibers (i.e. average space between fibrous bodies) is affected by multiple factors, include magnitude of shear force to be applied, temperature, presence of an arbitrary lubricating fluid between inorganic particles, and a multi-stage roll-forming step (paragraphs [0065] – [0066] & [0080]). Furthermore, when the degree of fibrillation of PTFE particles is high, an insulating resin material formed of a structure having high mechanical strength is obtained (paragraph [0065]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Kasagi et al., Therefore, absent a showing of criticality with respect to thickness (a result effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the degree of fibrillation of PTFE particles and parameters of the multi-stage roll-forming step through routine experimentation in order to achieve the directed three-dimensional orientation and network configuration of the fibrils (i.e. spacing between fibrous bodies to form said network) and thus achieve the desired high mechanical strength. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 2, Imamura et al. do not explicitly teach a peel strength in the 180-degree peel tests is 10 N/cm or more
However, Imamura et al. teach as the thickness of the resin layer (of the substrate) is in the preferred range, peeling of the conductor layer can be effectively suppressed (paragraph [0093]). Furthermore, heating and pressurization to form the resin layer is optimized to suppress peeling (paragraph [0158]). Therefore, the peel strength can be optimized.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the thickness and method step conditions (heating and pressure) through routine experimentation in order to achieve a desired peel strength when peeled from a conductor. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 3, Imamura et al. teach the variation value of the contents of the filler be 11% or less (paragraph [0033]). The non-porous inorganic finer particles may be used alone or in combination (paragraph [0067]). Therefore, Imamura et al. suggests an embodiment comprising 89 – 100 mass% silica balloons, which is within Applicant’s claimed range of 70 mass% or more and 100 mass% or less.
With regard to claim 4, Imamura et al. teach the surface of the filler may be modified with a surface modifier includes a hydrocarbon group having 1 – 30 carbon atoms (paragraphs [0074] – [0076]), which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 4 or more carbon atoms.
With regard to claims 5 – 6, Imamura et al. teach a substrate for a high frequency printed wiring board (paragraphs [0002] & [0068] – [0069]), comprising a conductive layer, such as a copper layer, is formed on the substrate (“dielectric sheet”) (paragraphs [0016], [0095] – [0096], & Fig. 5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-1552. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (9 a.m. to 10 p.m.).
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA/ Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781