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 1-11 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 1, the claim recites the limitation "CaO and MgO in a range of 5.0% by mass or more and 13.0% by mass or less in total" in line 6. It is unclear whether this limitation requires that both CaO and MgO be present in the glass composition, or whether the limitation is satisfied by either oxide alone so long as the combined content falls within the recited range. For the purpose of further examination, this limitation will be interpreted as requiring that the combined content of CaO and MgO be 5.0% by mass or more and 13.0% by mass or less, with neither oxide being required to be individually present in a nonzero amount.
Additionally, claim 1 recites the limitation "with respect to a total amount" in line 7. It is unclear whether the recited total amount is the total amount of the glass composition or the total amount of the five recited components. For the purpose of further examination, this phrase will be interpreted as "with respect to a total amount of the glass composition," which is consistent with ¶28 of the instant PG-PUB.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, claim 4 recites the limitation "the S, B, A, P, C and M" in lines 1 and 2, and claim 5 recites the same limitation in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Each of claims 4 and 5 depends from claim 1, and claim 1 does not recite a content S of SiO2, a content B of B2O3, a content A of Al2O3, a content P of P2O5, a content C of CaO, or a content M of MgO. Those symbols are introduced only in claim 3, from which claims 4 and 5 do not depend. For the purpose of further examination, claims 4 and 5 will be interpreted as reciting the definitions set forth in claim 3, namely a content S of SiO2, a content B of B2O3, a content A of Al2O3, a content P of P2O5, a content C of CaO, or a content M of MgO.
Regarding claims 2, 3, and 6-11, these claims depend from a rejected claim and include all of the limitations thereof. Therefore, they are also rejected.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakizaki et al. (US 2019/0136000).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 8, and 9, Kakizaki et al. teaches a glass cloth comprising a glass yarn woven together, the glass yarn comprising multiple glass filaments (¶25) (glass fiber comprising glass filaments formed of a glass composition for glass fiber). The composition of the glass filaments contains B2O3 in an amount of 15% by mass to 30% by mass, SiO2 in an amount of 45% by mass to 60% by mass, and P2O5 in an amount of 2% by mass to 8% by mass (¶26). B2O3 is present in an amount of 15% by mass to 30% by mass, preferably 20% by mass to 27% by mass, and more preferably 21 % by mass to 25% by mass (¶29); SiO2 is present in an amount of 45% by mass to 60% by mass, preferably 47% by mass to 58% by mass, and more preferably 50% by mass to 55% by mass (¶31); and P2O5 is present in an amount of 2% by mass to 8% by mass, preferably 3% by mass to 7% by mass, and more preferably 3% by mass to 6% by mass (¶34). Kakizaki et al. further teaches that the glass filaments may contain components other than B2O3, SiO2, and P2O5, such as Al2O3, CaO, and MgO (¶37); that the amount of Al2O3 in the composition is preferably 10% by mass to 20% by mass and more preferably 13% by mass to 19% by mass (¶38); that the amount of CaO is preferably 0% by mass to 8% by mass and more preferably 1% by mass to 8% by mass (¶39); and that the amount of MgO is preferably 0% by mass to 5% by mass and more preferably 1% by mass to 5% by mass (¶40), the total amount of B2O3, SiO2, P2O5, and the above other components being 100% by mass (¶41). The combination of the CaO range of 0% by mass to 8% by mass and the MgO range of 0% by mass to 5% by mass provides a combined CaO and MgO content of 0% by mass to 13% by mass.
Kakizaki et al. further teaches that the glass cloth is woven from warp yarn and weft yarn (¶43) and has a plain weave, basket weave, satin weave, or twill weave structure, with a plain weave structure being preferred (¶46) (a glass fiber woven fabric comprising the glass fiber). Kakizaki et al. also teaches a prepreg comprising the glass cloth and a matrix resin impregnating the glass cloth (¶70), the matrix resin being a thermosetting resin or a thermoplastic resin (¶71-73) (a glass fiber-reinforced resin composition comprising the glass fiber), and a printed wiring board produced using the prepreg (¶74).
Kakizaki et al. does not teach the amounts of SiO2, B2O3, Al2O3, P2O5, and CaO and MgO in total with the specificity recited in claim 1. However, in the case where the claimed ranges "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). See MPEP 2144.05. In the present instance, the range of 45% by mass to 60% by mass of SiO2 overlaps the claimed range of 36.0% by mass or more and less than 48.0% by mass; the range of 15% by mass to 30% by mass of B2O3 overlaps the claimed range of 18.0% by mass or more and 32.0% by mass or less; the range of 10% by mass to 20% by mass of Al2O3 overlaps the claimed range of 12.0% by mass or more and 24.0% by mass or less; the range of 2% by mass to 8% by mass of P2O5 overlaps the claimed range of 2.5% by mass or more and 8.9% by mass or less; and the combined CaO and MgO range of 0% by mass to 13% by mass overlaps the claimed range of 5.0% by mass or more and 13.0% by mass or less. Every component required by claim 1 is therefore taught by Kakizaki et al. in a range overlapping the corresponding claimed range.
At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the amounts of SiO2, B2O3, Al2O3, P2O5, CaO, and MgO from within the overlapping portions of the ranges taught by Kakizaki et al., and would have been motivated to do so in order to allow the resulting laminate to have a lower dielectric constant than laminates obtained using glass cloths having a common E glass, D glass, NE glass, or L glass composition (¶28). Kakizaki et al. further teaches that an amount of SiO2 of 45% by mass or more lowers the dielectric constant of the resulting laminate (¶32), while an amount of 60% by mass or less improves the ability for drilling process of the resulting laminate (¶33); that an amount of B2O3 of 15% by mass or more lowers the glass melt viscosity, which makes drawing of the glass yarn easy and results in stable hollow filament quality of the glass cloth, while an amount of 30% by mass or less improves the moisture absorption resistance when the glass cloth is surface treated (¶30); that an amount of P2O5 of 2% by mass or more provides the glass cloth with a further lowered dielectric constant, while an amount of 8% by mass or less improves the heat resistance when the glass cloth is surface-treated (¶35); and that amounts of Al2O3, CaO, and MgO within the taught ranges further improve the yarn productivity (¶38-40).
Regarding claims 2-5, Kakizaki et al. teaches the glass composition for glass fiber of claim 1 as set forth above. Kakizaki et al. does not teach that a content S of SiO2, a content P of P2O5, a content C of CaO, and a content M of MgO satisfy formula (1-1), or that a content S of SiO2, a content B of B2O3, a content A of Al2O3, a content P of P2O5, a content C of CaO, and a content M of MgO satisfy formulas (2-1), (2-2), and (2-3). However, the recited formulas are arithmetic expressions of the contents of the same six oxides recited in claim 1, each of which Kakizaki et al. teaches in a range overlapping the corresponding claimed range, and the formulas therefore require no component that Kakizaki et al. does not already teach. A composition falling entirely within the ranges taught by Kakizaki et al., for example a composition containing 46% by mass of SiO2, 24% by mass of B2O3, 15% by mass of Al2O3, 5% by mass of P2O5, 6% by mass of CaO, and 2% by mass of MgO, has a value of (C+M)/(S/P) of 0.87 (calculated by Examiner; (C+M) = (6+2) = 8, (S/P) = (46/5) = 9.2, and (8/9.2) = 0.87), which falls within the range of 0.38 to 1.52 recited in formula (1-1); and a value of (S/P)*(C+M)/(A+B) of 1.89 (calculated by Examiner; (A+B) = (15+24) = 39, and 9.2*(8/39) = 1.89), which falls within the range of 0.91 to 2.31 recited in formula (2-1), the range of 0.92 to 2.24 recited in formula (2-2), and the range of 0.93 to 1.92 recited in formula (2-3).
Further, the instant specification teaches that there is a tendency that, as the value of (C+M) is higher, long fiber formation is facilitated and the biosolubility of the glass fiber increases, but the dielectric tangent of the glass fiber increases; and that, as the value of (S/P) is higher, the dielectric tangent of the glass fiber decreases, but long fiber formation becomes difficult and the biosolubility of the glass fiber decreases (¶44 of the instant PG-PUB). Applicant has thereby recognized that the contents of SiO2, P2O5, CaO, and MgO, and the relationships among those contents expressed by formulas (1-1), (2-1), (2-2), and (2-3), control the dielectric tangent, the fiber-forming ability, and the biosolubility of the resulting glass fiber. Therefore, those contents and relationships are result-effective variables. It is well known in the art to optimize result effective variables, such as the content of an oxide component in a glass composition. MPEP §2144.05. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 II.A. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the contents of SiO2, B2O3, Al2O3, P2O5, CaO, and MgO within the ranges taught by Kakizaki et al. so as to arrive at the values recited in formulas (1-1 ), (2-1 ), (2-2), and (2-3), and would have been motivated to do so in order to provide the glass cloth with a further lowered dielectric constant while maintaining heat resistance and yarn productivity (¶35, 38-40).
Regarding claims 7, 10, and 11, Kakizaki et al. teaches the glass fiber, the glass fiber woven fabric, and the glass fiber-reinforced resin composition of claims 6, 8, and 9 as set forth above. Kakizaki et al. does not teach that a filament diameter of each of the glass filaments is less than 3.0 μm. However, Kakizaki et al. teaches that the average filament diameter of the glass filaments is preferably 2.5 μm to 9.0 μm (¶42). As set forth above, in the case where the claimed ranges "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). See MPEP 2144.05. The range of 2.5 μm to 9.0 μm taught by Kakizaki et al. overlaps the claimed range of less than 3.0 μm, the instant specification giving a lower limit value of the filament diameter of, for example, 0.5 μm (¶67 of the instant PG-PUB), so that the overlapping region is 2.5 μm to less than 3.0 μm. Further, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). MPEP 2123. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select an average filament diameter of 2.5 μm to less than 3.0 μm from within the range taught by Kakizaki et al., and would have been motivated to do so in order to further improve the processability of the resulting laminate in processing by a mechanical drill, a carbon dioxide laser, or a UV-YAG laser (¶42).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA C SCOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00, EST.
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.
/ANGELA C SCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights