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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 recites that the total units of the three monomers (aromatic vinyl, aromatic polyene, and olefin) is 100 mass% in lines 28-30, whereas claims 4 and 5 recite the presence of a fourth monomer in the amount of up to 10 parts per 100 parts of the copolymer. The 100 mass% limitation in claim 1 is confusing, given that claims 4 and 5 require the presence of a fourth monomer.
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 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.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al. (JP 2009/161743 A, published 23 Jul. 2009, hereinafter Arai) in view of Iwashita and Kawabe (JP 2018/039995 A, published 15 Mar. 2018, hereinafter Iwashita).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 12, Arai teaches a post curing resin composition comprising a specific copolymer with nonpolar vinyl compounds (Abstract). Arai teaches P-5 copolymer comprising ethylene, 13 mol.% styrene, and 0.7 mol.% divinyl benzene (paragraphs 0049-0050 and Table 2, see original Japanese patent document, reproduced below).
PNG
media_image1.png
240
867
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Note: The third column in the table is the mol.% of styrene, the fourth column is the mol.% of non-ethylene olefins, and the fifth column is the mol.% of divinyl benzene. The remaining monomer in the P-5 copolymer is ethylene.
Arai’s P-5 copolymer comprises 13 mol.% styrene, 0.7 mol.% divinyl benzene, 86.3 (100-13-0.7) mol.% ethylene, and no other olefins, and the Mw and polydispersity of P-5 copolymer are 33,700 and 2.1, respectively (Table 2 above). Thus, the number average molecular weight of P-5 copolymer is about 16,050 (33,700/2.1). The amount of styrene in his P-5 copolymer is about 35 wt. ((104*13)/(28*86.3%+104*13%+130*0.7%)). The number of divinyl benzene repeat units in a length of the P-5 copolymer equal to the number average molecular weight is 2.9 (0.7%*16,050)/(28*86.3%+104*13%+130*0.7%)).
Further, Arai teaches that the polyene content in his copolymer may vary from 0.05 to 10 mol.% (claim 1). Therefore, combining this range for the amount of aromatic polyene with the amount used in Arai’s teaching example P-5, Arai teaches the number of pieces of divinylbenzene in his copolymer ranges from about 0.2 (2.9*0.05/0.7) to about 41 (2.9*10/0.7) pieces of divinylbenzene (aromatic polyene).
Arai teaches the inclusion of 1 to 100 parts of polyphenylene ether-based resin to 100 parts of the post-curable resin composition (paragraph 0032).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected a relative amount of polyphenylene ether from the overlapping portion of the ranges taught by Arai because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
Arai does not disclose the number average molecular weight of his polyphenylene ether nor the presence of a plurality of functional groups on his polypropylene ether.
Iwashita teaches a polyfunctional vinyl aromatic copolymer composition comprising a polyphenylene ether with two or more polymerizable unsaturated groups in the molecule (Abstract and paragraph 0017). Iwashita teaches his modified polyphenylene ether contains vinylbenzyl (aromatic vinyl) or (meth)acrylate terminal groups (paragraph 0064). Iwashita teaches the number average molecular weight for his modified polyphenylene ether resin is most preferably 1000 to 3000 (paragraph 0079).
Given that Arai and Iwashita are drawn to curable compositions comprising a vinyl aromatic copolymer and polyphenylene ether as in insulating material for circuit boards, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the modified polyphenylene ether of the type and molecular weight as taught by Iwashita as the polyphenylene ether in the composition taught by Arai. Since Arai and Iwashita are both drawn to curable compositions comprising a vinyl aromatic copolymer and polyphenylene ether, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in using the modified polyphenylene ether of the type and molecular weight as taught by Iwashita as the polyphenylene ether in the composition taught by Arai. Further, Iwashita teaches the terminal functional groups balance heat resistance, storage stability, and fluidity of the curable composition (paragraph 0065), and Iwashita teaches that this range of molecular weight results in a curable composition that exhibits higher toughness and moldability (paragraph 0080).
Arai in view of Iwashita does not disclose the storage elastic modulus at 300° of his cured product; however, given that the cured product of Arai in view of Iwashita has the same copolymer with the same relative amounts of monomer, the same type and amount of polyphenylene ether, and the same amount of curing agent, within the overlapping ranges, the cured product of Arai in view of Iwashita would inherently have the same storage elastic modulus at 300°C as the claimed invention, and therefore, would fall within the claimed range for storage elastic modulus at 300°C.
Regarding claims 4-5, Arai in view of Iwashita teaches the elements of claim 1, and Arai teaches the inclusion of polyenes containing polar groups in the amount of less than 1 mass% (paragraph 0027).
Regarding claim 6, Arai in view of Iwashita teaches the elements of claim 1, and Arai teaches the inclusion of a solvent (paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 7, Arai in view of Iwashita teaches the elements of claim 1, and Arai teaches the inclusion of 0.01 to 10 parts of a curing agent to 100 parts of the post-curable resin composition (paragraph 0030).
Regarding claim 8, Arai in view of Iwashita teaches the elements of claim 1, and Arai teaches the inclusion of inorganic fillers and flame retardants (paragraph 0032).
Regarding claims 9-11, Arai teaches the elements of claim 1, and Arai teaches his post-curable resin composition is molded into a flexible sheet (paragraphs 0024 and 0033).
Regarding claim 13, Arai teaches the elements of claim 11, and Arai teaches his post-curable resin composition is used as low dielectric constant, low dielectric loss insulation for semiconductors (paragraphs 0034).
Claim 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al. (JP 2009/161743 A, published 23 Jul. 2009, hereinafter Arai) in view of Iwashita and Kawabe (JP 2018/039995 A, published 15 Mar. 2018, hereinafter Iwashita) and further in view of Guan et al. (US Patent Application 2020/0157261 A1, priority 04 Aug. 2017, published 21 May 2020, hereinafter Guan).
Regarding claims 14-15, Arai in view of Iwashita teaches the elements of claim 1, and Arai teaches laminating a conductor foil to a substrate coated with Arai’s cured product to form a component in a high-frequency integrated circuit (paragraph 0034).
Arai does not specify a copper foil for his conductor foil.
Guan teaches a thermosetting resin composition comprising a solvent-soluble polyfunctional vinyl aromatic copolymer for copper foil clad laminates (Abstract).
Given that Arai and Guan are drawn to curable compositions comprising a vinyl aromatic copolymer for insulating conductive foils, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a copper foil as taught by Guan as the conductor foil in the laminate taught by Arai. Since Arai and Guan are both drawn to curable compositions comprising a vinyl aromatic copolymer for insulating conductive foils, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in using the copper foil as taught by Guan as the conductor foil in the laminate taught by Arai. Further, Guan teaches a copper foil can improve the signal loss of laminate materials used in high frequency and high speed printed circuit boards (paragraph 0082).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Arai et al. (JP 2006/176708 A, published 06 Jul. 2006) teaches a copolymer of a cross-polymerizing olefin, an aromatic vinyl compound, and a diene and blend of this copolymer with another resin. Arai (JP 2010/280771 A, published 16 Dec. 2010) teaches a post-curable resin comprising an ethylene-olefin-polyene copolymer, in which the “olefin” is styrene. Arai et al. (US Patent 6,559,234 B1, published 06 May 2003) teaches a cross-copolymerized olefin-styrene-diene copolymer. Arai et al. (US Patent Application 2017/0145135 A1, published 25 May 2017) teaches an olefin-aromatic vinyl compound-aromatic polyene copolymer. Kawabe et al. (US Patent Application 2007/0129502 A1, published 07 Jun. 2007) teaches a curable resin comprising polyphenylene ether with a number average molecular weight of 700 to 4,000 and a solvent-soluble polyfunctional vinylaromatic copolymer. Suzuki et al. (JP 2002/265543 A, published 18 Sep. 2002) teaches a film for heat sealing comprising an olefin-aromatic vinyl compound-diene copolymer and laminating this copolymer with copper foils. Suzuki et al. (JP 2010/013575 A, published 21 Jan. 2021) teaches a blend of an olefin-aromatic vinyl compound-divinylbenzene copolymer and polyphenylene ether.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN VINCENT LAWLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9603. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Callie Shosho can be reached on 571-272-1123. 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.
/JOHN VINCENT LAWLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights