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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Applicant claims the insertion interval of the warp yarns is 0.021 to 0.25 cm and a warp width in cm. It is not clear if this is the spacing between the warp yarns or there are insertion type warp yarns different from other warp yarns. It is further not clear what a warp width is in cm. Clarification is required.
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.
Claim 1 and dependent claims 2-18 and claim 4 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.
Claim 1 recites a warp width in cm. Does this mean the width of the woven fabric in the warp direction or possibly the width of the warp yarn or some other measure. It is not clear what the scope of the term warp width in cm means.
Claim 4 recites the insertion interval L1 of the warp yarns is 0.021 to 0.25 cm. It is not clear what the scope of the claim term means. It is not clear if the distance claimed of 0.021 to 0.25 cm is the distance between insertion yarns or the distance between each warp yarn. Typical values for warp density are described as picks per inch or yarns per inch. Clarification is required.
For purposes of examination, the warp width is equated with the warp yarn width or diameter.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohigashi (WO 2012101991).
Ohigashi is directed to a pre-preg, laminate board, printed wiring board and semiconductor device (title). Ohigashi teaches a pre-preg (40) is formed by impregnating a woven fiber constituted of strands with a resin composition. In this pre-preg, silica particles are present in the strands. This makes it possible to obtain a pre-preg having a superior ability for woven fiber to be impregnated with the resin composition. It is further possible to use this pre-preg and/or a metal-clad laminate board produced using this pre-preg to produce a printed wiring board and a semiconductor device (ABST).
Ohigashi teaches a prepreg of the present invention is a prepreg formed by impregnating a fiber woven fabric composed of strands with a resin composition. Silica particles are present in the strands constituting the fiber woven fabric. The strand is a bundle of fibers constituting the fiber woven fabric. A fiber woven fabric is formed by weaving the strands so as to have a woven structure described later.
Ohigashi teaches the high-density fiber woven fabric refers to a fiber that has been treated not only to increase the number of yarns to be driven, but also to uniformly and highly open each fiber and reduce the thickness by flattening. Means woven fabric. The high-density fiber woven fabric has, for example, a bulk density of 1.05 g / cm3 or more. Thereby, since the resin composition can be further impregnated between the fibers one by one, the filler can be further highly filled. Furthermore, since the amount of resin on the fiber woven fabric can be secured sufficiently, the moldability is maintained when copper foil is laminated on a prepreg to make a copper-clad laminate or when the surface of a copper-clad laminate is smoothed (page 3, paragraph 5, and 4 para 1 of machine translation).
Ohigashi teaches a woven made from glass yarn that is treated with surface treated agent.
Ohigashi teaches the Youngs modulus is measured with a three point bending tester, however does not measure the bending rigidity per unit length (page 5, para 2).
Ohigashi teaches the thickness is 10-200 micron, 10-140 micron, 20-90 micron (page 5, para 5).
Ohigashi teaches the flatness of the yarn width, represented by thickness of the yarn but does not explicitly teach the thickness of the warp yarn, however teaches the thickness of the fabric which for a 1 yarn thickness fabric is the same as the thickness of the warp yarn. The thickness of the fabric and therefore the warp yarn is 10-200 micron.
As Ohigashi teaches the same materials and structure of a woven fabric with a surface treatment agent, it is reasonable to presume that the woven of Ohigashi would inherently have the same second bending rigidity per unit length. As Ohigashi does not measure the bending rigidity, therefore the formula including bending rigidity can not be calculated. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.
As to claims 1, 2, 8 and 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce a woven fabric that has a bending rigidity motivated to produce a woven fabric that can bend for a pre-preg and printed circuit board.
As to claims 3 and 10, Ohigashi teaches the thickness is 10-200 micron, 10-140 micron, 20-90 micron which is equivalent to 0.0001 cm to 0.014 cm and overlaps the claimed range (page 5, para 5; page 8, para 3).
As to claims 4 and 11, Ohigashi teaches the bulk density of the fiber woven fabric is preferably 1.05 to 1.30 g / cm .sup.3 , and more preferably 1.10 to 1.25 g / cm .sup.3 . When the bulk density is less than the lower limit, the laser processability of the insulating layer is inferior, and when the upper limit is exceeded, the impregnation property of the resin composition with respect to the fiber woven fabric is deteriorated. The bulk density of the fiber woven fabric is adjusted by adjusting the number of warps and wefts to be driven and the thickness of the fiber that has been subjected to the opening and flattening treatment (page 5, para 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the insertion interval L1 of the warp yarns motivated to produce a high density woven fabric for a pre-preg.
As to claim 7, Ohigashi does not measure the fuzz. As Ohigashi teaches the same materials and structure of a woven fabric with a surface treatment agent, it is reasonable to presume that the woven of Ohigashi would inherently have the same fuzz. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.
As to claims 13 and 14, Ohigashi teaches the particle size of the silica particles are size of 5 to 100 nm in a proportion of 20% by mass of the filler which is less than 3 micron (page 3, para 2).
As to claims 15 and 16, Ohigashi the glass woven is impregnated with a resin and is a pre-preg and printed wiring board (page 13, para 4) and the resin is cured (page 14, para 4).
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohigashi (WO 2012101991) in view of Adachi (WO 2011125396).
As to claims 5 and 12, Ohigashi teaches silica particles are adhered to the have a size of 5 to 100 nm in a proportion of 20% by mass of the filler. Ohigashi teaches the surface treatment (including silane) is performed on 50% or more of the specific surface area (claim 5) and 0 particles/micron (claim 12).
Ohigashi does not teach the particles are present at a rate of 100 particles/micron or less.
Adachi is directed to a process for producing a glass fiber fabric having good smoothness and excellent in being impregnated with resin. Adachi teaches the glass fabric is woven and in an adhesion step, the glass fiber fabric is immersed in aqueous dispersion of silica microparticles to cause the silica microparticles to be adhered to the surfaces of the glass fiber fabric. The fabric is filamentized to widths of the yarns are widened (ABST). The mass ratio of the silica fine particles to the solution is preferably 0.01 to 5% by mass, more preferably 0.1 to 2% by mass. By containing a large amount of silica fine particles in the solution, the silica fine particles are easily attached to the surface of the glass filament. On the other hand, when the ratio of the mass of the silica fine particles to the solution is more than 5% by mass, the silica fine particles are likely to aggregate, and the aggregate of the silica fine particles may adhere to the silica fine particle-attached fabric and become soiled (page 5, para 1 and 2).
In the attaching step for the particles, one or a plurality of widening rollers extending in a direction orthogonal to the traveling direction of the glass fiber fabric are arranged in the silica fine particle adhesion tank, and the glass fiber fabric is widened in the aqueous dispersion of silica fine particles. It is preferable to advance while bending with a roller. Here, the bending means that the glass fiber fabric is bent along the outer peripheral surface of the widening roller, that is, the glass fiber fabric is in contact with the outer peripheral surface of the widening roller with a certain area. The widening roller is a member that generates tension in the glass fiber fabric in the lateral direction when the glass fiber fabric is bent, and its shape is not particularly limited. The fiber yarn is widened by the tension applied by the widening roller, and the silica fine particles are easy to enter between the glass filaments (page 5, para 6).
The number of the widening rollers and the number of times of bending the glass fiber fabric depending on the number of the widening rollers are not particularly limited. For example, two widening rollers are arranged in the silica fine particle adhesion tank, and the glass fiber fabric is made of silica fine particles. It is preferable to bend twice in the aqueous dispersion (page 6, para 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the concentration of the silica particles in the solution motivated to achieve the desired amount of particles on the surface of the filaments and not have agglomeration.
With regard to claim 12, it would have been obvious to provide for areas without silica particle motivated to have areas of less adhesion to the resin matrix.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohigashi (WO 2012101991) in view of Nakanishi (JP 2018127750).
As to claim 6, Ohigashi teaches the surface treatment agent comprises a silane or alkylsilazane agent. Ohigashi does not teach an unsaturated double bond.
Nakanishi is directed to a glass cloth, prepreg and printed wiring board with a low dielectric constant with which a substrate excellent in dimensional stability. The glass cloth made by weaving. Nakanishi teaches a glass yarn treated with silane coupling agent that has a unsaturated double bond group. By using a silane coupling agent having an unsaturated double bond group, the reactivity with the matrix resin is further improved, and a hydrophilic functional group is hardly generated after reacting with the matrix resin, and the insulation reliability is further improved (page 6 and 7, last para and first para).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ an unsaturated silane coupling agent motivated to improve the reactivity with the matrix resin.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohigashi (WO 2012101991) in view of Reibel et al (DE 102007041630).
As to claim 17, Ohigashi differs and does not teach spraying particles of dry ice onto the fiber opening.
Reibel is directed to the invention relates to a simple and economical method for producing textile fabric consisting of at least partially split yarns, fibres or filaments, in which, in particular, time consuming, energy and/or cost intensive processes are avoided. As a result, a dividable, initial textile fabric is divided or split at least partially into elementary filaments by treatment, in particular bombardment with dry ice, frozen water or an air-particle mixture at a temperature of at least 20 °C to 30 °C below the glass transition temperature (Tg) of the polymers used as yarns, fibres or filaments (ABST).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use dry ice motivated to separate and split filaments to widen and allow for silica particle infiltration.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohigashi (WO 2012101991) in view of Reibel et al (DE 102007041630) in view of Adachi (WO 2011125396).
As to claim 18, Ohigashi in view of Reibel differ and do not teach the fiber opening is performed by bending at radius of curvature of 2.5 mm or less.
Adachi teaches a method of using widening roller to widen the glass fiber fabric so that the silica particles are easier to enter between the filaments. The widening rollers and the number of times of bending the glass fiber fabric depending on the number of the widening roller are not particularly limited. The widening rollers can be 60-120 degrees by being bent by one widening roller so the recess angel is less than 60 degrees to 120 degrees (page 6, para 3).
Adachi does not disclose the radius of curvature of 2.5 mm or less. Adachi discloses the degrees of bending. As Adachi is teaching the need to bend the fabric over the roller in order for the silica particles to impregnate the filaments.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to bend the glass fabric over rollers motivated to penetrate the silica particles into the filaments of the glass fabric.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A STEELE whose telephone number is (571)272-7115. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNIFER A STEELE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights