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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 3 and 9 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 3 recites the limitation “wherein a toughness of the polyphenylene ether composition fibers is 5 or more and 30 or less.” It is unclear what the units for the claimed toughness are.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the polyphenylene ether composition fibers are composed of single filaments having a single filament diameter of 1 to 50 µm,” although this limitation is already in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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, 9-11, 16, 28-29 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Peterson et al. (US Patent No. 5,965,682).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Peterson teaches fibers made from a composition comprising a long chain branched syndiotactic vinyl aromatic (LCB-SVA) polymer (col. 1, lines 53-55). Syndiotactic polystyrene is the preferred syndiotactic vinyl aromatic polymer (col. 2, lines 17-19). Fibers may be produced from compositions comprising a LCB-SVA polymer and other components including other polymers (col. 3, lines 27-29). Generally, at least 5 percent by weight of a LCB-SVA polymer is used in a composition for producing fibers, typically at least 20 percent, preferably at least 40 percent, more preferably at least 70 percent and most preferably 100 percent (col. 3, lines 33-45). Other polymers which may be included in such compositions include but are not limited to linear SPS, polystyrene, polyphenylene oxide, brominated polyphenylene oxide such as polydibromophenylene oxide, polyolefins, such as polypropylene, polyethylene, poly(4-methylpentene), ethylene-propylene copolymers, ethylenebutene-propylene copolymers, nylons, e.g. nylon-6, nylon-6,6; polyesters, such as poly(ethylene terephthalate), poly(butylene terephthalate); and copolymers or blends thereof (col. 3, lines 33-45). Typically, the fibers will have a diameter of from about 0.3µ, preferably from about 0.5µ, more preferably from about 0.8µ and most preferably from about lµ to about 10µ, preferably to about 8µ, more preferably to about 5µ and most preferably to about 3µ (cols. 3-4, lines -67-5). Typically, fibers can be utilized to produce many different forms, wherein they can be formed into webs, mats, nonwovens, flashspun media, needlefelts, wet laid and dry laid media, or other fibrous intermediate articles (col. 4, lines 9-16). These types of intermediate articles include, but are not limited to, meltblown webs (and others) (col. 4, lines 16-27). Another aspect is directed to articles made from LCB-SVA polymers, fibers and intermediate webs which include, but are not limited to, filtration media, wovens, fabrics, extruded netting and articles made therefrom (col. 4, lines 31-35). Other articles include spunbonded media (and others) (col. 4, lines 35-36).
Therefore, Peterson teaches the claimed limitations, including a single-filament diameter of 1 to 50 µm.
However, it would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided single filaments with the diameters taught by Peterson because Peterson teaches that the forms and articles (e.g., webs) that the fibers can be used to produce include those that would typically comprise single fibers.
Regarding claim 10, Peterson teaches that, in one embodiment, LCB-SVA polymer fibers are used to form a prepreg of a fibrous base material comprising LCB-SVA polymeric fibers and a resin composition comprising a thermosetting resin impregnated in the base material (col. 5, lines 36-40).
Regarding claim 11, Peterson teaches that especially preferred resins include the well known epoxy resins, polyimide resins, cyanate-ester resins, bismaleimides-triazine resins and vinylester resins (col. 6, lines 16-19).
Regarding claim 16, Peterson teaches that the curing agent contained in the epoxy resin composition is not particularly critical, but in general, at least one member selected from dicyandiamide compounds, aromatic polyamines, anhydrides and phenolic resins can be used (col. 6, lines 37-40).
Regarding claims 28-29 and 35, Peterson teaches that a printed circuit board can be prepared by combining a predetermined number of prepregs, adding a copper foil on the surface of the prepreg or prepreg laminate, and integrally curing the laminate by heating under compression (cols. 7-8, lines 33-3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 3-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al. (US Patent No. 5,965,682), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Take (JP H04146934 A, see attachment).
Regarding claims 3-4 and 6, Peterson remains as applied above, teaching a variety of fiber forms and production methods (col. 4, lines 9-27).
Peterson does not explicitly disclose wherein a toughness of the polyphenylene ether composition fibers is 5 or more and 30 or less, wherein a thermal stress rise temperature of the polyphenylene ether composition fibers is 100 °C or higher and 190 °C or lower, or wherein a number average molecular weight of the polyphenylene ether is 9000 to 21000.
However, Take teaches obtaining a polyphenylene ether resin film or fiber free from the problems of thermal deterioration, poor dispersion of additives, etc., by mixing a polyphenylene ether resin with a solvent at a specified temperature, molding the solution into a sheet, a film or a fiber and removing the solvent from the molding ([Abstract). Take teaches that since the polyphenylene ether resins are mixed with solvents, they are preferably used as powders having a particle size of 0.3mm or less, and those having a number-average molecular weight in the range of 7,000-5000, particularly in the range of 10,000-30,000, are usually easily available, but the production method can be applied even when the number-average molecular weight is more than 50,000 because a mixture suitable for appropriate use can be obtained by adjusting the amount of solvents (page 3, lines 27-33).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the polyphenylene ether in the composition of Peterson with a number-average molecular weight in a range of 7,000-50,000, and particularly in a range of 10,000-30,000, because Take teaches that such molecular weights are suitable for the production of fibers and are readily available (Abstract and page 3, lines 27-33).
With regard to the claimed properties, the examiner notes that the fiber composition of Peterson in view of Take discussed above is the same as or is substantially the same as that disclosed by applicant. Thus, it is the position of the Office that the composition of Peterson in view of Take would have the claimed properties as the same compound necessarily has the same properties. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to expect that the claimed properties would be so provided, as the references teach the same materials and compositions as those claimed, and as the properties cannot be separated from the materials. Therefore, absent an objective showing to the contrary, the examiner expects the polyphenylene ether composition fibers taught by Peterson in view of Take to have the claimed properties. 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al. (US Patent No. 5,965,682), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Matunase (JP 2004277953 A, see attachment).
Regarding claim 7, Peterson remains as applied above.
Peterson does not explicitly disclose wherein the resin fiber sheet is a resin fiber cloth with warp and weft weave densities of 20 to 200 fibers/inch and an opening ratio of 1 to 30%.
However, Matunase teaches a porous sheet uniformly having fine holes in a high density (Abstract). Matunase teaches a method for producing the porous sheet that comprises melting fibers at cross-over points of weave structures or knit structures and forming holes having ≤35,000 µm2 size, or melting fibers at cross-over points of weave structures or knit structures and forming holes having ≤200 µm diameter of circles having average area per hole (Abstract). The density of the pores is preferably 10% or more, and more preferably 20% or more ([0036] and [0009]). Matunase also teaches an example of a plain weave fabric having a warp and weft density of 100 yarns/inch (see Examples 1 and 2, [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the woven fabrics of Peterson with an opening ratio (a density of the openings in the fabric) of preferably 10% or more, and with a warp and weft density of 100 yarns/inch, in order to provide a polymer porous sheet suitable for use in wiring boards, as suggested by Matunase ([0055]; also [0036] and [0066]).
Claim(s) 12-15 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al. (US Patent No. 5,965,682), as applied to claims 1, 10-11 and 16 above, in view of Uchida (JP 2017082200 A, see attachment), with evidence from US20230365797A1.
Regarding claim 12, Peterson remains as applied above, teaching a prepreg comprising a thermosetting resin impregnated in a base material, and a printed circuit board prepared by combining a predetermined number of prepregs (col. 5, lines 36-40, and cols. 7-8, lines 33-3).
Peterson does not explicitly disclose wherein the matrix resin composition contains polyphenylene ether resin or wherein the polyphenylene ether resin contains a low molecular weight polyphenylene ether having a number average molecular weight of 1000 to 5000.
However, Uchida teaches a resin composition contains: (A) a polyphenylene ether in which a hydroxyl group present at a terminal of the main chain is modified with an ethylenically unsaturated compound; (B) at least one of triallyl isocyanurate and triallyl cyanurate; (C) a copolymer of butadiene and styrene; and (D) an organic peroxide (Abstract). In the Examples, Uchida teaches, for component (A), A1: methacryl-modified polyphenylene ether: SA9000 (manufactured by Sabics Co., Ltd., trade name, number-average molecular weight Mn:2,000-3,000, and A2: methacryl-modified polyphenylene ether: SA6000 (manufactured by Sabics Co., Ltd., trade name, number-average molecular weight Mn:3,000-5,000) [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have included a polyphenylene ether having a number average molecular weight (Mn) in the range of 2,000 to 5,000 in the matrix resin composition of Peterson in order to obtain a resin composition with a low dielectric constant and dielectric loss tangent, and with excellent high-frequency characteristics, for use in printed wiring boards (Uchida: [0006], [0010], and the above-cited paragraphs).
Regarding claims 13-15, Uchida teaches that the resin composition may further contain silica, a flame retardant, a stress relaxation agent, and the like as necessary and within a range not departing from the gist of the invention ([0041]). Examples include fused silica treated with methacrylsilane: SFP- 130MHM (manufactured by Denki Kagaku Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha), FUSELEX E - 2,Adma FineSO - C5, and PLV-3 (all manufactured by Tatsumori Co., Ltd) ([0042]). The average particle diameter of the silica is preferably 10 µm or less ([0043]). The amount of silica is preferably 5 to 40 parts by mass when the total amount of the component (A), the component (B), the component (C), and the component (D) is 100 parts by mass ([0044]). Uchida also teaches, in the Examples, SFP 130MC (manufactured by Denki Kagaku Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha, trade name, mean particle size 0.5 µm) ([0070]). As evidenced by US20230365797A1, SFP-130MC is a surface-treated spherical silica powder ([0161]).
Regarding claims 17-18, Uchida teaches that when the total amount of the component (A), the component (B), the component (C), and the component (D) is 100 mass%, the amount of the component (C) is 0.5-20 mass% (Abstract). Uchida also teaches, as a component (C) in the Examples, butadiene-styrene copolymers: C1: RICON100 (manufactured by CRAY VALLEY, Japan, trade name, mass ratio (butadiene/styrene): 75/25), C2: butadiene-styrene copolymers: RICON184 (manufactured by CRAY VALLEY, trade name, mass ratio (butadiene/styrene): 72/28), and C3: butadiene-styrene copolymers: RICON257 (manufactured by CRAY VALLEY, trade name, mass ratio (butadiene / styrene): 65/35) ([0070]).
Claim(s) 12-15 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al. (US Patent No. 5,965,682), as applied to claims 1, 10-11 and 16 above, in view of Higashita et al. (US 2021/0229407 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Peterson remains as applied above, teaching a prepreg comprising a thermosetting resin impregnated in a base material, and a printed circuit board prepared by combining a predetermined number of prepregs (col. 5, lines 36-40, and cols. 7-8, lines 33-3).
Peterson does not explicitly disclose wherein the matrix resin composition contains polyphenylene ether resin or wherein the polyphenylene ether resin contains a low molecular weight polyphenylene ether having a number average molecular weight of 1000 to 5000.
However, Higashita teaches a prepreg, a resin sheet, a metal foil-clad laminate, and a printed wiring board formed using a resin composition (Abstract). The resin composition contains a styrene-based elastomer (A), a styrene oligomer (B), a maleimide compound (C), and a cyanate ester compound (D) (Abstract). Higashita teaches the resin composition further containing a polyphenylene ether (E) ([0023] and [0101]). The polyphenylene ether (E) has a number average molecular weight of not lower than 1000 and not higher than 7000 ([0025] and [0116]-[0117]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have included a polyphenylene ether having a number average molecular weight of not lower than 1000 and not higher than 7000 in the matrix resin composition of Peterson in order to obtain a resin composition that effectively exhibits the effect of achieving both moldability and the appropriate electrical properties for a printed circuit board (Abstract and [0117]).
Regarding claims 13-15, Higashita teaches that the resin composition can suitably contain an inorganic filler (F) ([0129]). Among the inorganic fillers, silicas, such as natural silicas, fused silicas, synthetic silicas, amorphous silicas, and hollow silicas, are preferred in terms of dielectric properties ([0129]). The content of the inorganic filler (F) in the resin composition is preferably not less than 50 parts by mass, preferably not less than 75 parts by mass, and may be not less than 100 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of resin solid component of the resin composition in terms of electrical properties ([0131]). Higashita teaches preferably not less than 50 parts by mass to 100 parts by mass of resin solid component of the resin composition, while applicant claims 10 to 50% by mass. The amounts are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In Example 1, Higashita further teaches a spherical silica (SC2050-MB available from Admatechs Company Limited, average particle diameter of 0.5 μm) ([0160]).
Regarding claims 17-18, Higashita teaches that, with respect to the styrene-based elastomer (A), a styrene-hydrogenated butadiene-styrene block copolymer and a styrene hydrogenated isoprene-styrene block copolymer are preferred ([0050] and [0017]). The number average molecular weight of the styrene-based elastomer (A) is preferably higher than 1600, more preferably not lower than 50000, and even more preferably not lower than 80000. The upper limit is preferably not higher than 300000, more preferably not higher than 200000, and even more preferably not higher than 150000 ([0055]). The content ratio of the styrene block (also referred to as "styrene ratio") in the styrene-based elastomer (A) is preferably from 15 to 70 mass% ([0054]). The content of the styrene-based elastomer (A) in the resin composition is preferably not less than 1 part by mass and more preferably not less than 5 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of resin solid component of the resin composition ([0056]). Furthermore, the content is preferably not more than 30 parts by mass and more preferably not more than 15 parts by mass ([0056]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ogoshi (JP 2014240528 A, see attachment) teaches stereoregular polystyrene-based staple fibers formed from an island component in a stereoregular polystyrene-based composite spun fiber (Abstract and [0043]). The island component may contain 95% by mass or more of syndiotactic polystyrene ([0020]). Examples of other components that may be contained in the island components include polyether-based resins such as polyphenylene oxides ([0021]). The average yarn diameter of the short fibers is preferably 30 µm or less, more preferably 10 µm or less ([0044]). Ogoshi also teaches woven and nonwoven fabrics ([0048] and [0073]).
Yamasaki (EP 0501352 A2) teaches a fibrous reinforcing molding comprising a styrenic polymer with a high degree of syndiotactic configuration (Abstract). The fibers have 1 to 100 mm length and 1 to 500 µm diameter (page 3, lines 50-54, and page 4, lines 21-24). A thermoplastic resin may be blended therein, preferably PPS and poly(2,6-dimethyl-1,4-phenylene oxide) or modified product thereof (page 4, lines 25-39, and Example 5).
Kawamata (US 10,584,429 B2) teaches a mesh woven comprising a liquid crystalline polyester fiber (Abstract and col. 3, lines 30-31). In the liquid crystalline polyester, other polymers can be added or combined, such as a polyphenylene oxide, (col. 7, lines 31-47). The amount added or combined to use is preferably 50 wt % or less, and more preferably 5 wt % or less (col. 7, lines 51-57).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Worrell whose telephone number is (571)270-7728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/Kevin Worrell/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789