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 § 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.
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.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Ikehira in view of KR 20210122173 in view of Palmese US 20180044473A.
Regarding claims 1-10, Ikehira teaches a resin composition which comprises a compound with a novolac structure and the compound can be PT-30 (Page 13). It would have been obvious to select PT-30 (phenol novolak type polyfunctional cyanate ester resin) as the curing agent because it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
This reads on the claimed polyfunctional cyanate ester resin. The Instant Specification teaches the PT-30 is a suitable polyfunctional cyanate ester that falls within the claimed glass transition temperature, molecular weight, and structure of claim (I), (Page 8 Lines 27-29). This reads on the limitations of claims 1-6.
Ikehira also teaches the composition comprises a hydroxy containing silicone oil (Page 17). Ikehira teaches the hydroxy containing silicone oil can be KF-2201. It would have been obvious to select KF-2201 as the hydroxy containing silicone oil because it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
The instant specification teaches that KF-2201 is a suitable hydroxy containing silicone oil which has the claimed structure of formulas II and III (Page 9 Lines 27-30). This reads on the limitations of claims 6 and 7.
Ikehira is silent on the curing accelerator being an imidazolium dicyanamide.
Ikehira teaches the composition is a thermosetting composition (Abstract, Page 22). Ikehira teaches the resin composition is used in printed circuit wiring boards (Abstract, Title).
Palmese teaches a method of catalyzing cyanate esters to form thermosetting polymers using dicyanamide containing ionic liquids (Abstract). Palmese teaches the cyanate ester compound can be PT-30 (Paragraph [0047]). Palmese teaches the catalyzing component is 1-ethyl-3-methyl imidazolium dicyanamide compound (Paragraph [0041]). It would have been obvious to use the 1-ethyl-3-methyl imidazolium dicyanamide as the imidazolium dicyanamide compound of Palmese because it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Palmese teaches the resulting thermoset polymer is used in microelectronics applications (Abstract). Palmese also teaches that the dicyanamide catalyst provides an advantage over conventional polymers synthesized with metal catalysts, because the metals remaining in conventional polymers can also catalyze the degradation of the polymer when the polymer is exposed to high temperatures (Paragraph [0061]). Further Palmese teaches the inventive thermoset polymer having a triazine polymer has a high resistance to: i) network degradation; ii) Tg loss under humid conditions; and iii) blistering (Paragraph [0061]). Ikehira teaches the composition comprises a metal-based curing accelerator (Page 15). It would have been obvious to replace the metal-based curing accelerator of Ikehira with the imidazolium dicyanamide catalyst of Palmese for the advantages described in Palmese, including resistance to network degradation.
This reads on the limitation of claims 1-10.
Regarding claim 11, Ikehira teaches the composition is cured into a cured product (Abstract). This reads on the claimed resin blend.
Regarding claim 12, Ikehira teaches the components of the resin composition are mixed together (Example 1, Page 32) then cured (Page 32 and 33).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILY K SLOAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30 ET.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
/LILY K SLOAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights