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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 30 April 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities.
The preamble of claim 1 recites, in relevant portion, “[a] press pad a press pad for…”, which appears to contain an inadvertent error. The examiner suspects the intent of the applicant was to recite this portion of the claim as “[a] press pad for…” and will be examined on the merits as such.
Appropriate correction 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.
Claims 1-8 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.
Line 2 in claim 1 recites “for producing circuit boards, high pressure laminates or similar plate material.” However, this portion of the claim is indefinite because it is not clear what kind of plate material would be classified as being a plate material which is similar to the previously recited “circuit boards,” high pressure laminates,” etc.
Claims 2-8 are included in this rejection based on their dependency from claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the partially crosslinked fluoro rubber polymerized material" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, the claim from which claim 8 depends, does not mention a crosslinked or partially crosslinked fluoro rubber. Upon further review of the claims, it is noted that claim 7 introduces a fluoro-rubber material which is a polymerized product, and at least one of the monomers listed therein mentions a state of the copolymer prior to crosslinking. However, this portion of claim 7 fails to positively recite a limitation requiring each set of monomers within the co-polymer, terpolymer, or polymerized material, respectfully, to have any degree of crosslinking.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2005/0014437 (hereinafter “Yoshida”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0018933 (hereinafter “Marxen”), and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0136668 (hereinafter “Kose”).Regarding claims 1, 2 and 5 Yoshida teaches a cushioning pad (press pad) for hot pressing (press pad for a hydraulic single-level or multi-level heating and cooling press for producing circuit boards, high pressure laminates, or similar plate material) comprising: a surface layer 9 and a rear face layer 10 (two outer layers 9, 10) laminated on the upper and lower faces thereof (arranged on two opposite sides of the pad); a nonwoven fabric layer (center layer) 3 comprising a flat base fabric 1 of fibers (flat contexture including fibers) and arranged between the surface layer 9 and rear face layer 10 (two outer layers 9, 10); and two rubber layers (connection layers) 7 made from a fluoro rubber material and bonded to the nonwoven fabric layer (center layer) 3, where the rubber layers (connection layers) 7 are respectfully arranged between the nonwoven fabric layer (center layer) 3 and the two outer layers 9, 10 (abstract; paragraphs [0046], [0062], [0066] and [0067]; and Figures 1 and 9). Yoshida teaches the surface layer 9 and the rear face layer 10 (two outer layers 9, 10) include fluoro resin films/foils (paragraphs [0021] and [0066]). Yoshida teaches the cushioning pad is for hot pressing for forming a laminate, such as a printed circuit board (paragraph [0001]). Yoshida does not explicitly teach the surface layer 9 and the rear face layer 10 (two outer layers 9, 10) is made from a foil comprising: a high temperature resistant thermoplastic polymer with a very low friction coefficient; or polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE), ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE), perfluoralkoxy polymer (PFA), tetrafluoroethylene hexafluoropropylene copolymer (FEP), or polychlorotrifluorotriethylene (PCTFE). Marxen teaches it is well known that press cushions for printed circuit board production are typically configured with anti-adhesion layers on their surfaces, for example in the form of a foil made from polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE) (paragraph [0003]), which corresponds to: a foil for outer layers made from PTFE; and a foil comprising a high temperature resistant thermoplastic polymer with a very low friction coefficient. Marxen establishes a functional equivalence between the fluoro resin films/foils of Yoshida and a foil comprising PTFE for use as surface layers for press cushion/pads in printed circuit board production. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the surface layer 9 and the rear face layer 10 (two outer layers 9, 10) of Yoshida, and substituting the fluoro resin films/foils of Yoshida with the PTFE foil, as suggested by Marxen, motivated by the desire to form conventional surface layers of a press cushion/pad in a printed circuit board production application, comprising a PTFE foil known in the art as being functionally equivalent and predictably suitable for use in forming such surface layers. In addition, Yoshida teaches examples (samples 1-4 and 6-12) where the base fabric (flat contexture) 1 of the nonwoven fabric layer (center layer) 3 comprises a mixture of meta-aramid fibers and PBO fibers, where the major portion of the fibers are meta-aramid fibers (paragraphs [0075] – [0089]; and Tables 1-2). Yoshida does not explicitly teach at least a major portion of the fibers or all of the fibers of the base fabric 1 (flat contexture of the center layer) are made from a material with a negative thermal length expansion coefficient. Kose teaches a material composite composed of metal and plastic to form a plastic-metal hybrid component (abstract). Kose teaches in order to reduce stress generated in an interface region of the material composite caused by temperature change, fibers, such as glass fibers, carbon fibers, or aramid fibers having a negative thermal expansion along the fiber orientation has been found to be particularly advantageous in reinforcing the plastic component (paragraph [0022]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the meta-aramid fibers in the base fabric of Yoshida with the aramid fibers having a negative thermal expansion property of Kose to reduce stress generation during a temperature change present in Yoshida’s heat pressing.Regarding claim 3 In addition, Yoshida teaches the nonwoven fabric (center layer) 3 is obtained by laminating webs 2 on the upper and lower faces of the base fabric 1, where the base fabric 1 includes a woven fabric (center layer includes a woven material) (paragraph [0055]).Regarding claim 4 In addition, Yoshida teaches the nonwoven fabric (center layer) 3 is obtained by laminating webs 2 of mixed fibers on and beneath a base fabric (flat contexture of the center layer) 1 and integrating the resultant by needle punch, where the fibers of the webs 2 are oriented in the thickness direction (paragraphs [0019], [0055] and [0056]), which corresponds to the flat contexture of the center layer includes needled on short fibers on both opposite sides of the flat contexture. Yoshida teaches the webs (needled on short fibers) are made from a material that is identical to a material of the fibers of the nonwoven fabric (center layer) 3 or from a different material (paragraphs [0019], [0046], [0047], [0055] and [0077] – [0082]). Alternatively, or in addition, the material of the webs (needled on short fibers) must necessarily be either identical to or different from the fibers of the nonwoven fabric (center layer) 3 as these two options encompass the entire range of possible materials.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida, Marxen, and Kose as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2020/071322 A1 with United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0402726 (hereinafter “Ozeki”) being used as the English language equivalent translation.Regarding claim 6 The limitations for claim 1 have been set forth above. As previously noted, Yoshida teaches the two rubber layers (connection layers) 7 are made from a fluoro rubber material and disposed between the nonwoven fabric layer (center layer) 3 and the two outer layers 9, 10, and the two outer layers 9, 10 comprise fluoro resin films (paragraph [0066]; and Figures 1 and 9). In addition, Yoshida does not explicitly teach an entire surface of the foil of the two outer layers oriented toward the connection layer is adhesion enhanced by chemical etching or by ionization treatment by a low-pressure plasma. Ozeki teaches a hot press cushioning material includes a base material layer (abstract). Ozeki teaches a fluorine film may be surface-treated with corona, plasma, primer, etc. so as to facilitate bonding with a fluororubber and to prevent peeling-off of the film (paragraph [0076]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the fluoro resin films of the two outer layers 9, 10 of Yoshida with the surface treatment of Ozeki to aid the fluorine film in facilitating a bond with a fluororubber and to prevent peeling-off of the film. The use of product-by-process limitations has been noted in claim 6, for example, "enhanced by chemical etching or by ionization treatment by a low-pressure plasma." "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process", In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, "although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product", In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP §2113.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida, Marxen, and Kose as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2007/0027259 (hereinafter “Yoshida-259”), as further evidenced by a datasheet titled “Fluoroelastomer DAI-EL G-701” by DAIKIN (hereinafter “Daikin-701”), and as further evidenced by a datasheet titled “Fluoroelastomer DAI-EL G-701BP” by DAIKIN (hereinafter “Daikin-701BP”).Regarding claims 7 and 8 The limitations for claim 1 have been set forth above. In addition, Yoshida does not explicitly teach: (i) the fluoro rubber material of the rubber layers (connection layers) 7 is polymerized and made from a co-polymer of vinylidene fluoride (VDF) and hexafluoropropylene (HFP), or a terpolymer of vinylidene fluoride (VDF), hexafluoropropylene (HFP) and tetrafluoroethylene (TFE), or a polymerized material made from vinylidene fluoride (VDF), hexafluoropropylene (HFP), tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) and perfluoromethylvinyl ether (PMVE), or a polymerized material made from vinylidene fluoride (VDF), hexafluoropropylene (HFP), tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) and perfluoromethylvinyl ether (PMVE) and ethene before crosslinking (claim 7); or (ii) the components of the partially crosslinked fluoro rubber polymerized material (of the connection layers) are crosslinked in a peroxidic manner or a diamine manner or in a biphenolic manner (claim 8). Yoshida-259 teaches a vulcanized fluoro rubber useful for a cushioning material for heat pressing (title, abstract, and paragraph [0001]). Yoshida-259 teaches the composition of the fluoro rubber is not particularly limited, where a vinylidene fluoride (VDF) copolymer is preferred because it is superior in characteristics of the compression set when used in hot pressing, and the raw fluoro rubber of the vinylidene fluoride (VDF) copolymer is commercially available as “DAI-EL” (Daikin Industries, LTD), etc. (paragraphs [0014] – [0015]). Yoshida-259 teaches examples where the fluoro rubber composition includes DAI-EL G701 and DAI-EL G701BP with a vulcanizing accelerator (Tables 1-2). Yoshida-259 teaches a degree of vulcanization may be adjusted to be included in 90.0% to 98.8% of a gel fraction by compounding a smaller amount of the vulcanizing agent, where a well-known vulcanizing agent such as bisphenol can be used (paragraphs [0022] – [0023]), which corresponds to a partially crosslinked fluoro rubber polymerized material. As evidenced by Daikin-701 and Daikin-701BP, it is well known that DAI-EL G701 is a bisphenol curable VDF/HFP copolymer (fluoro rubber polymerized material being crosslinked in a biphenol manner) (Daikin-701 – page 1) and DAI-EL G701BP is also a bisphenol curable VDF/HFP copolymer (fluoro rubber polymerized material being crosslinked in a biphenol manner) (Daikin-701BP – page 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the fluoro rubber material of the rubber layers (connection layers) 7 of Yoshida with the VDF/HFP copolymer of Yoshida-259 to yield a fluoro rubber being superior in characteristics of the compression set when used in hot pressing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN HANDVILLE whose telephone number is (571)272-5074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, from 9 am to 4 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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/BRIAN HANDVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights