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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for domestic benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 to U.S. Application No. 17/661,403, filed 29 April 2022. Claims 1-16 are not entitled to the benefit of the 29 April 2022 filing date. A claim in a continuation-in-part application is entitled to the filing date of the prior-filed application only if the subject matter of that claim is disclosed in the prior-filed application in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See MPEP 211.05.
Claim 1 recites forming a functional dielectric layer having a dielectric constant of less than or equal to 2.5. Application No. 17/661,403 discloses forming a functional dielectric layer having a “low dielectric constant” and discloses no numerical value, range, or endpoint for the dielectric constant of the layer. A statement that a property is low does not provide written description support for a specific numerical limitation. See MPEP 2163.05. Application No. 17/661,403 further contains no disclosure of montmorillonite, boron nitride, liquid crystal plastic, any frequency range, or the multi-stage curing and annealing schedule described in the Detailed Description of the present application. Claim 16, which recites that the ceramic material is boron nitride, is unsupported by the prior-filed application for this additional reason.
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim, and claims 2-16 each depend from claim 1. Every claim of the present application therefore requires the dielectric constant limitation of claim 1. Accordingly, the effective filing date of claims 1-16 is 22 August 2024, the actual filing date of the present application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A1 and B2 in the reply filed on 17 June 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 9-11 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The second paragraph of the Summary of the Invention (page 3, lines 7-11) recites “In order to achieve the above object, a primary object of the present invention to provide a method of manufacturing wire covering materials for prevention of spillover loss during transmission of high frequency signals according to the present invention includes the following steps.” The sentence is grammatically incomplete and duplicates the statement of object set forth in the immediately preceding paragraph.
The Detailed Description (page 8, lines 12-24) describes curing the formed film in three stages, in which the film is heated to 35℃-45℃ for 2 minutes, then to 65℃-80℃ for 3 minutes, and then to 100℃-120℃ for 2 minutes, followed by annealing at an initial temperature of 100℃-150℃ maintained for at least 10 hours. The same paragraph then states that “an initial temperature of curing the film is 100℃-200℃ which is maintained for at least one minute” and that “[t]he optimal initial temperature is 150℃.” These statements are inconsistent with the process described. The initial temperature of curing under the described three-stage process is 35℃-45℃, not 100℃-200℃. The stated optimal temperature of 150℃ exceeds the temperature of every curing stage described and falls only within the range given for annealing. The recited holding period of at least one minute corresponds neither to the durations given for the three curing stages nor to the period given for annealing.
The Detailed Description (page 9, line 2) recites “Refer to Fig, 2,”. The first comma should be a period.
The Detailed Description (page 9, lines 6-10) recites that the functional dielectric layer “has a duty ratio which is higher than average value of insulating materials.” Duty ratio is not a recognized property of a dielectric material, no definition is provided, and the meaning of the recitation cannot be determined.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “contains at least 50% the high insulating ceramic materials,” which appears to omit the word “of.” Claim 7 recites “the paste is gotten by,” which is informal. “Obtained by” is suggested.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The preamble of claim 1 recites “[a] method of manufacturing wire covering materials for prevention of spillover loss during transmission of high frequency signals.” The body of claim 1 recites no wire, no conductor, and no step of applying the functional dielectric layer to any substrate. The body therefore sets forth a complete method without reliance on the preamble, and the preamble is regarded as a statement of intended use that does not limit the claim. See MPEP 2111.02(II). The term “spillover loss” is not an art-recognized term and is not defined in the specification. It is given no patentable weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-8, 12-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
The claim(s) contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Specifically, the specification does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to form a functional dielectric layer having a dielectric constant less than or equal to 2.5 without gaps or micropores, as recited in claim 1. As set forth in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below, the third step of claim 1 is interpreted as requiring that the functional dielectric layer be formed from the product of the recited mixing step.
Breadth of the claim. Claim 1 encompasses any high insulating ceramic material having a flake structure, combined with any polymer, formed by any manufacturing process, provided the resulting layer has a dielectric constant of 2.5 or less and contains no gap and no micropore. The claim recites no minimum or maximum filler loading, no identified ceramic, and no identified polymer.
Direction and working examples provided by the inventor. The specification identifies two ceramic materials, montmorillonite and boron nitride, and one polymer, liquid crystal plastic. It contains no working examples, no measured dielectric constant for any composition, and no comparative data. It provides no guidance for selecting among ceramic and polymer combinations to obtain the recited dielectric constant, and no indication of which combinations were found to succeed or fail.
State of the art and predictability. Boron nitride, the elected ceramic species, has a measured out-of-plane dielectric constant of 3.4 ± 0.2, within a generally accepted range of 3 to 4. Pierret et al., Mater. Res. Express 9, 065901 (2022). Liquid crystal polymer, the sole polymer identified in the specification, has a measured dielectric constant of approximately 3.16 at microwave frequencies, steady across 30 to 110 GHz. Thompson et al., IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech., Vol. 52, No. 4, pp. 1343-1352 (2004). Both materials therefore have dielectric constants exceeding the claimed maximum of 2.5.
The effective dielectric constant of a two-phase composite is bounded by the dielectric constants of its constituent phases. A composite formed from the disclosed ceramic and the disclosed polymer accordingly cannot exhibit a dielectric constant of 2.5 or less at any filler loading. The specification identifies no polymer having a dielectric constant below 2.5.
The art recognizes the introduction of vacancies or air spaces, air having a dielectric constant of 1, into a polymer matrix as a principal route to reducing dielectric constant, and porous polyimide films exhibit dielectric constants markedly reduced relative to ordinary non-porous films, with the dependence of dielectric constant on porosity described by the Bruggeman model. Kourakata et al., Polymer 212, 123115 (2021). Claim 1, however, requires a layer having no gap and no micropore, interpreted below as substantially free of voids, and the specification discloses no method of generating porosity. The disclosed process, comprising three-stage curing followed by annealing at 100°C to 150°C for at least ten hours, is directed to consolidation rather than to void formation.
Level of ordinary skill. The relative skill of those in the chemical and materials engineering arts is high.
Quantity of experimentation required. Because no disclosed material combination can meet the recited dielectric constant limitation, and because the specification provides no working examples, no measured data, and no direction toward materials outside those disclosed, one of ordinary skill would be required to identify suitable matrix polymers, filler loadings, and processing conditions entirely through independent research. This constitutes undue experimentation.
Claims 2-8, 12-14, and 16 are rejected based on their dependency from claim 1.
The specification does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the method of claim 1 where the flake structure of the ceramic material is cubic crystal or pseudocubic crystal, as recited in claim 2.
Breadth of the claim. Claim 2 requires ceramic materials that simultaneously possess a flake structure containing 1 to 10 layers, each layer having a thickness of 1 nm to 3 nm, a flake diameter of 0.5 μm to 10 μm, and a cubic or pseudocubic crystal structure. The claim is not limited to any particular ceramic material.
Direction and working examples provided by the inventor. The specification states that the flake structure can be cubic crystal or pseudocubic crystal, but identifies no ceramic material having such a structure. The only two ceramic materials identified in the specification are montmorillonite and boron nitride, and neither has a cubic or pseudocubic crystal structure. Montmorillonite is a layered aluminosilicate of monoclinic symmetry. The layered, exfoliable form of boron nitride is the hexagonal polymorph. Cubic boron nitride is a distinct polymorph having a three-dimensional network structure and is not obtained in the layered form recited in claim 1. No working example of a ceramic material meeting the requirements of claim 2 is provided, and no process for obtaining such a material is described.
State of the art and predictability. Flake or nanosheet morphology at a layer thickness of 1 nm to 3 nm is characteristically obtained by exfoliating anisotropic layered crystals along weakly bonded crystallographic planes. While platelet morphologies are known for certain materials of cubic symmetry, the specification gives no indication which ceramic materials of cubic or pseudocubic structure, if any, may be obtained in the recited layered flake form, or by what process. Whether a given ceramic can be produced in a particular morphology is not predictable from its crystal structure alone.
Level of ordinary skill. The relative skill of those in the chemical and materials engineering arts is high.
Quantity of experimentation required. One of ordinary skill would be required to survey candidate ceramic materials of cubic and pseudocubic crystal structure and to develop, without guidance from the specification, a process for producing such a material in the layered flake form recited in claim 1. Given the absence of any working example, any identified candidate material, and any process guidance, this constitutes undue experimentation.
The specification does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain boron nitride, as required by claim 16, in the flake structure required by claim 1, in which each of 1 to 10 layers has a thickness of 1 nm to 3 nm.
Breadth of the claim. Claim 16 requires that at least one of the ceramic materials of claim 1 be boron nitride. By virtue of its dependency, claim 16 further requires that the ceramic material have a flake structure comprising 1 to 10 layers, each layer having a thickness of 1 nm to 3 nm, and a flake diameter of 0.5 µm to 10 µm. Claim 16 is not limited to any particular polymorph of boron nitride.
Direction and working examples provided by the inventor. The specification identifies boron nitride as one of two ceramic materials suitable for the claimed method. It does not identify the polymorph of boron nitride to be used, does not state the thickness of an individual layer of boron nitride, and describes no process for obtaining boron nitride in the recited layered form. No working example employing boron nitride is provided, and no layer thickness is reported for any material.
State of the art and predictability. The layered polymorphs of boron nitride are the hexagonal and rhombohedral forms, which consist of sp²-bonded planar layers held together by van der Waals forces at an interlayer spacing of approximately 0.33 nm. A single layer of hexagonal boron nitride accordingly has a thickness of approximately 0.33 nm, and a nanosheet of 1 to 10 layers has a total thickness of approximately 0.33 nm to 3.3 nm. This is reflected in the art, which defines exfoliated boron nitride nanosheets having an average thickness of fewer than 10 molecular layers as having a height in the range of about 0.33 nm to about 3 nm. US 2020/0131401 A1 (“Xie”), [0018]. A layer thickness of 1 nm to 3 nm therefore corresponds to a stack of approximately 3 to 9 boron nitride layers and does not correspond to any single layer of the material. The remaining polymorphs of boron nitride, the cubic and wurtzitic forms, are three-dimensional network structures that are not obtained in layered form.
Level of ordinary skill. The relative skill of those in the chemical and materials engineering arts is high.
Quantity of experimentation required. No polymorph of boron nitride has an individual layer thickness falling within the recited range of 1 nm to 3 nm. The material required by claim 16, boron nitride having a flake structure of 1 to 10 layers each 1 nm to 3 nm thick, therefore cannot be obtained. Because the specification provides no working example, no identified polymorph, and no process guidance, one of ordinary skill would be required to undertake independent research without any reasonable expectation of success. This constitutes undue experimentation.
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.
Claims 1-8, 12-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
The term “high insulating” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of insulation, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 5 and 6 recite the same term. For purposes of examination, the modifier “high” is given no patentable weight, and the limitation is interpreted as requiring electrically insulating ceramic materials.
Claim 1 recites “getting high insulating ceramic materials having nano-scale flake structure with a flake diameter ranging from 0.5 μm to 10 μm.” A flake diameter of 0.5 μm to 10 μm corresponds to 500 nm to 10,000 nm, which is not nanoscale. It is further unclear whether “nano-scale” is intended to characterize the flake diameter, the recited layer thickness of 1 nm to 3 nm, or the flake structure as a whole. Because claim 1 separately recites express dimensions for the flake diameter, the number of layers, and the layer thickness, the metes and bounds added by the recitation “nano-scale” cannot be determined. For purposes of examination, “nano-scale” is given no patentable weight, and the flake structure is interpreted as being defined by the dimensions expressly recited in claim 1.
Claim 1 recites forming a functional dielectric layer “with no gap, no micropore.” Neither term is defined in the specification, and the specification provides no standard for determining whether a gap or micropore is present in a given layer. In addition, the term “micropore” has an art-recognized meaning denoting a pore of less than 2 nm in width, as distinguished from mesopores of 2 nm to 50 nm and macropores greater than 50 nm. It cannot be determined whether “no micropore” is intended to exclude only pores of less than 2 nm or to exclude porosity generally, and the scope of the claim accordingly cannot be ascertained. For purposes of examination, “with no gap, no micropore” is interpreted as requiring a functional dielectric layer that is substantially free of voids. This interpretation is consistent with the process described in the specification, which comprises multi-stage curing followed by annealing at 100°C to 150°C for at least ten hours and is directed to consolidation of the layer rather than to the formation of voids within it.
Claim 1 recites “ceramic materials” and “polymers.” It cannot be determined whether these recitations require a plurality of distinct ceramic materials and a plurality of distinct polymers, or whether they are used generically without regard to number. The specification identifies a single polymer, liquid crystal plastic, and describes embodiments employing a single ceramic material. For purposes of examination, each recitation is interpreted as requiring one or more. Amendment to recite “a ceramic material” and “a polymer” would obviate this rejection. Because claim 1 employs the open transitional phrase “comprising,” such amendment would not preclude the presence of additional ceramic materials or polymers.
The third step of claim 1 recites “forming a functional dielectric layer with no gap, no micropore, and a dielectric constant of less than or equal to 2.5 by at least one manufacturing process.” The step does not recite the material from which the functional dielectric layer is formed, and does not recite any relationship to the mixture produced in the preceding mixing step. It therefore cannot be determined whether the functional dielectric layer is required to be formed from the ceramic materials and polymers recited in the preceding steps, or whether it may be formed from any material. For purposes of examination, the third step is interpreted as requiring that the functional dielectric layer be formed from the product of the mixing step recited in claim 1. This interpretation is consistent with the specification, which describes the functional dielectric layer as obtained from the composition of the ceramic materials with the polymers, and with Fig. 1, which depicts the three recited steps in sequence.
Claims 2-8, 12-14, and 16 are rejected based on their dependency from claim 1.
Claim 2 recites that the flake structure of the high insulating ceramic materials is “cubic crystal or pseudocubic crystal.” The term “pseudocubic” is not defined in the specification, and the specification provides no standard for ascertaining the degree of deviation from cubic symmetry encompassed by the term. For purposes of examination, “pseudocubic crystal” is interpreted as a crystal structure deviating slightly from cubic symmetry.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the mixture of the ceramic materials having the maximum diameter of 60nm with a non-polar dispersant treated by ball milling dispersion for at least 8 hours.” The recitation is grammatically incomplete and does not set forth a positively recited step or condition, and its metes and bounds cannot be determined. Claim 6 further recites “the maximum diameter,” for which there is insufficient antecedent basis; claim 1 recites a range of flake diameters and does not recite a maximum diameter. Claim 6 also recites a mixture of the ceramic materials with a non-polar dispersant, whereas claim 4 recites a mixture of the ceramic materials with the polymers obtained by a mixer. It cannot be determined whether these are the same mixture, or whether the mixture of claim 6 also contains the polymers required by claims 1 and 4. Finally, it cannot be determined whether the recited maximum diameter of 60 nm characterizes the ceramic materials before or after the recited ball milling dispersion.
For purposes of examination, claim 6 is interpreted as requiring that the mixture of claim 4 be treated by ball milling dispersion for at least 8 hours in the presence of a non-polar dispersant, the composition so treated comprising the ceramic materials and the polymers of claims 1 and 4 together with the non-polar dispersant. As set forth in the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) below, the recited maximum diameter of 60 nm is not given patentable weight, and the antecedent basis and timing questions noted above are therefore not reached.
Claim 7 recites “the paste,” for which there is insufficient antecedent basis. Claim 4, from which claim 7 depends, recites a mixture and does not recite a paste. Claim 7 further recites ceramic materials mixed with a non-polar dispersant, and it cannot be determined whether the resulting composition also contains the polymers required by claims 1 and 4, or whether it is the same mixture recited in claim 4. Finally, it cannot be determined whether the recited flake diameter characterizes the ceramic materials before or after the recited ball milling dispersion.
For purposes of examination, “the paste” is interpreted as the mixture recited in claim 4; the composition subjected to ball milling dispersion is interpreted as comprising the ceramic materials and the polymers of claims 1 and 4 together with the non-polar dispersant; and the recited flake diameter is interpreted as characterizing the ceramic materials prior to the ball milling dispersion.
Claim 12 recites that “the functional dielectric layer is made of a polymer material.” Claim 1 recites mixing the ceramic materials with polymers and, as discussed above, is interpreted as requiring that the functional dielectric layer be formed from the product of this mixing step. It cannot be determined whether the “polymer material” of claim 12 is the same as, or different from, the “polymers” recited in claim 1, or whether claim 12 requires the functional dielectric layer to be formed from a polymer material other than the polymers of claim 1. For purposes of examination, “made of a polymer material” is interpreted as requiring that the functional dielectric layer comprise a polymer material, and “a polymer material” is interpreted as the polymers recited in claim 1.
Claim 13 recites “a thickness of the film formed after curing is at least 6 μm while an initial temperature of curing the film is 100℃-200℃ and the initial temperature is maintained for at least one minute.” Curing is not positively recited as a step of the claimed method, and it cannot be determined whether claim 13 requires that curing be performed or merely specifies conditions applicable in the event curing is performed. For purposes of examination, claim 13 is not interpreted as requiring that the film be cured. The recited film thickness and curing conditions are given patentable weight only in the event curing is performed.
Claim 14 recites “an optimal initial temperature of curing the film is 150℃.” The term “optimal” renders the claim indefinite because it cannot be determined whether the claim requires an initial curing temperature of 150°C or merely identifies 150°C as a preferred value. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, claim 14 is interpreted as requiring an initial temperature of curing of 150°C in the event curing is performed.
Claim 16 recites “the ceramic material.” Claim 1 recites “ceramic materials,” which provides antecedent basis, but it cannot be determined whether “the ceramic material” of claim 16 refers to all the ceramic materials of claim 1 or to one of them. For purposes of examination, claim 16 is interpreted as requiring that at least one of the ceramic materials of claim 1 be boron nitride.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3, 6, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which they depend, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which they depend.
Claim 3 recites, in the alternative, “mixing of the ceramic materials having the flake structure with polymers.” This alternative is coextensive with the mixing step recited in claim 1. Claim 3 is therefore satisfied by performance of the method of claim 1 without further limitation.
Claim 6 recites ceramic materials “having the maximum diameter of 60nm.” Claim 1 requires a flake diameter ranging from 0.5 μm to 10 μm, corresponding to 500 nm to 10,000 nm. A maximum diameter of 60 nm falls entirely outside the range required by claim 1. For purposes of examination, the recitation “having the maximum diameter of 60nm” is not given patentable weight, and claim 6 is treated as requiring only the ball milling dispersion of the mixture of claim 4 in the presence of a non-polar dispersant for at least 8 hours.
Claim 7 recites ceramic materials “having a flake diameter ranging from 110nm to 1500nm.” Claim 1 requires a flake diameter ranging from 0.5 μm to 10 μm, corresponding to 500 nm to 10,000 nm. The range recited in claim 7 only partially overlaps the range required by claim 1. Flake diameters from 110 nm up to 500 nm fall below the lower limit of claim 1, while flake diameters from 500 nm to 1500 nm fall within claim 1. Claim 7 therefore encompasses subject matter excluded by claim 1. For purposes of examination, the flake diameter recited in claim 7 is interpreted as ranging from 500 nm to 1500 nm.
Claim 12 recites that “the functional dielectric layer is made of a polymer material.” As interpreted in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, claim 1 requires the functional dielectric layer to be formed from a mixture of the ceramic materials with polymers, and therefore already requires that the layer comprise a polymer material. Claim 12 accordingly does not further limit claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TW I770773 B (“Chien”) in view of Abiodun et al., “Polytetrafluoroethylene Nanocomposites with Engineered Boron Nitride Nanobarbs for Thermally Conductive and Electrically Insulating Microelectronics and Microwave Devices,” ACS Applied Nano Materials, Vol. 6, No. 5, pp. 3781-3796 (2023) (“Abiodun”).
Regarding claim 1, Chien discloses the invention as follows.
A method of manufacturing wire covering materials for prevention of spillover loss during transmission of high frequency signals,
The preamble is not limiting for the reasons set forth in the Claim Interpretation section above. Chien nevertheless discloses a method of manufacturing a plastic coating material to prevent overflow loss during high-frequency signal transmission, in which a dielectric functional layer covers wires of the Type C 3.0, Type C 3.5 and Type C 4.5 varieties and covers the plugs and sockets of connectors such as RJ45 (see pages 3 and 11 of the provided translation).
getting high insulating ceramic materials having nano-scale flake structure with a flake diameter ranging from 0.5 μm to 10 μm and the flake structure contains 1 to 10 layers each of which having a thickness of 1nm-3nm,
Chien discloses step A, in which a sheet structure is formed using highly insulating ceramic materials, the sheet structure being at the micron and nanometer scale, the sheet diameter being 0.5 μm to 10 μm, the number of layers in the sheet structure being 1 to 10 layers, and the thickness of each layer in the sheet structure being 1 nm to 3 nm (see page 4). As set forth in the Claim Interpretation section above, the modifier “high” and the recitation “nano-scale” are given no patentable weight, and the flake structure is defined by the dimensions expressly recited in claim 1. Chien discloses each of those dimensions.
mixing of the ceramic materials having the flake structure with polymers,
Chien discloses step B, in which the sheet-like structure is composited with a polymer (see page 4). Chien further discloses that the sheet-like structure is in-situ composited with a non-polar polymer, or composited uniformly with a polymer, and is then composited using a mixer to form a slurry, granules, or plastic granules (see pages 6 and 10).
forming a functional dielectric layer with no gap, no micropore, and a dielectric constant of less than or equal to 2.5 by at least one manufacturing process.
Chien discloses step C, in which a dielectric functional layer with no gaps, no micropores, and a low dielectric constant is formed through manufacturing (see page 5). Chien discloses that the dielectric functional layer is formed through manufacturing methods such as coating, blow molding, die casting, or injection molding (see pages 8 and 10). As set forth in the Claim Interpretation section above, the third step of claim 1 is interpreted as requiring that the functional dielectric layer be formed from the product of the recited mixing step. Chien meets this requirement, forming the dielectric functional layer from the slurry, granules, or plastic granules produced by the compositing of step B, the viscosity of that slurry being adjusted by solvent to form a thin film (see pages 10 and 11).
Chien does not disclose that the dielectric functional layer has a dielectric constant of less than or equal to 2.5. Chien discloses only that the dielectric functional layer has a low dielectric constant, and recites no numerical value (see page 5). Chien further does not identify the polymer with which the ceramic sheet structure is composited.
Abiodun discloses composites of polytetrafluoroethylene and modified polytetrafluoroethylene with a boron nitride filler, and reports that such composites exhibit a dielectric constant of approximately 2.3 and a loss tangent of less than 0.005 at frequencies of 1 to 3 GHz (see Abstract). At a filler loading of 20 volume percent, Abiodun reports dielectric constants ranging from approximately 2.12 to 2.33 and loss tangents below 0.003 over the same frequency range, and states that these properties render the composites suitable for printed circuit board and other 5G applications (see pages 3792-3793, § 3.6).
Abiodun further discloses that the thermal conductivity of polytetrafluoroethylene and other polymers has been enhanced by incorporating micron-sized boron nitride and various nanostructures of boron nitride, including hexagonal boron nitride, spherical boron nitride nanoparticles, boron nitride nanoplatelets, and boron nitride nanosheets, and that polytetrafluoroethylene is particularly suitable as a polymer matrix for these nanostructures owing to ease of processing, nanofiller dispersion, and fabrication techniques that require no heat (see page 3781).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected polytetrafluoroethylene as the polymer with which the ceramic sheet structure of Chien is composited, as taught by Abiodun. Chien requires that the dielectric functional layer have a low dielectric constant but identifies no polymer for the compositing step. Abiodun identifies polytetrafluoroethylene as particularly suitable as a matrix polymer for ceramic nanostructure fillers, and reports that composites of polytetrafluoroethylene with such a filler exhibit a dielectric constant of approximately 2.12 to 2.33 at 1 to 3 GHz. Selection of a known material on the basis of its recognized suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.07. One of ordinary skill would accordingly have been motivated to select polytetrafluoroethylene in order to obtain the low dielectric constant that Chien requires, with a reasonable expectation of success, and the dielectric functional layer so formed would have a dielectric constant of less than or equal to 2.5 as recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, modified Chien discloses that in step A the sheet-like structure of the high-insulation ceramic material is either cubic or pseudo-cubic (see pages 5 and 9 of Chien).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, modified Chien discloses that in step B the sheet-like structure is in-situ composited with a non-polar polymer or composited uniformly with a polymer, and is then composited using a mixer to form a slurry, granules, or plastic granules (see pages 6 and 10 of Chien).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, modified Chien discloses that in step B the slurry is made by mixing ceramic materials having a particle size of up to 60 nm with a non-polar dispersant and then ball milling and dispersing them for at least 8 hours, with 10 hours being optimal (see pages 7 and 10 of Chien). Modified Chien further discloses, in the alternative, that the slurry is made by mixing ceramic materials having a particle size of 110 nm to 1500 nm with a non-polar dispersant and then ball milling and dispersing for at least 3 hours, with 4 hours being optimal and a sheet size of 960 nm to 1100 nm being optimal (see pages 7, 8, and 10 of Chien). As set forth in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) above, the maximum diameter of 60 nm recited in claim 6 is given no patentable weight, and the flake diameter recited in claim 7 is interpreted as ranging from 500 nm to 1500 nm. The range of 110 nm to 1500 nm disclosed by Chien encompasses that interpreted range, and the optimal sheet size of 960 nm to 1100 nm disclosed by Chien falls within it.
Regarding claim 8, modified Chien discloses that in step C the dielectric functional layer is manufactured by any one of the following manufacturing methods: coating, blow molding, die casting, or injection molding (see pages 8 and 10 of Chien).
Regarding claim 12, modified Chien discloses that in step C the dielectric functional layer is in a plastic form, and that the dielectric functional layer can be in the form of a plastic body (see pages 8 and 10 of Chien). As set forth in the Claim Interpretation section above, claim 12 is interpreted as requiring that the functional dielectric layer comprise a polymer material, that polymer material being the polymers recited in claim 1. Modified Chien forms the dielectric functional layer from the composite of the ceramic sheet structure with the polymer of step B, and the layer so formed comprises that polymer.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, modified Chien discloses that in step C the dielectric functional layer uses a solvent to adjust the viscosity of its slurry according to the feasibility of coating application to form a thin film, that the thickness of the formed film after curing is at least 6 μm, and that the initial temperature of the film during the curing process is between 100°C and 200°C, with the optimal temperature being 150°C, this temperature being maintained for at least 1 minute (see pages 8, 9, and 11 of Chien). As set forth in the Claim Interpretation section above, claims 13 and 14 are not interpreted as requiring that the film be cured, and the recited film thickness and curing conditions are given patentable weight only in the event curing is performed. Modified Chien discloses each of the recited conditions.
Claims 5 and 16 are not rejected over the prior art of record.
Claim 5 requires that a solid content of the mixture contain at least 50% of the ceramic materials having the flake structure, and by virtue of its dependency further requires that the functional dielectric layer have a dielectric constant of less than or equal to 2.5. Chien discloses that the sheet-like structure of highly insulating ceramic material accounts for at least 50% of the total solid content of the slurry, granules, or plastic granules, with 98% being optimal (see pages 6 and 10). The dielectric constant values reported by Abiodun, however, are for composites at a filler loading of 20 volume percent, and Abiodun states that the dielectric constant of the composites is higher than that of the polymer and increases with increasing filler volume fraction (see pages 3792-3793). The prior art of record does not disclose or suggest a functional dielectric layer satisfying both the filler loading required by claim 5 and the dielectric constant required by claim 1.
Claim 16 requires that at least one of the ceramic materials of claim 1 be boron nitride. Chien discloses a flake structure of 1 to 10 layers, each layer having a thickness of 1 nm to 3 nm, but identifies no ceramic material (see page 4). Abiodun discloses the use of boron nitride fillers in polymer composites, including boron nitride nanoplatelets and boron nitride nanosheets (see page 3781). As set forth in the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) above, however, no polymorph of boron nitride has an individual layer thickness falling within the range of 1 nm to 3 nm. The combination of boron nitride with the flake structure required by claim 1 cannot be obtained, and the prior art of record neither discloses nor suggests it.
The absence of a rejection over the prior art is not an indication that claims 5 and 16 contain allowable subject matter. Claims 5 and 16 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0131401 A1 (“Xie”) discloses forming exfoliated boron nitride nanosheets, combining monomers to form a thermoplastic polymer matrix, and dispersing the boron nitride nanosheets throughout that matrix by in situ polymerization ([0016] and [0031]). The boron nitride nanosheets have length and width dimensions in the range of about 10 nm to about 5,000 nm, an average thickness of fewer than 10 molecular layers and preferably fewer than 5 monolayers, and a corresponding height in the range of about 0.33 nm to about 3 nm ([0018]). The boron nitride powder from which the nanosheets are exfoliated has a particle size of about 0.1 μm to about 10 μm ([0019]). The coating composition so formed is applied to an electromagnetic wire by dip coating and is thereafter thermally cured ([0034]).
Xie accordingly discloses electrically insulating ceramic material in flake form, having a flake diameter overlapping the range of 0.5 μm to 10 μm recited in claim 1 over the portion from 0.5 μm to 5 μm; a flake structure of 1 to 10 layers; mixing of that material with a polymer, including the in-situ mixing recited in claim 3; forming a layer from the resulting mixture by a coating process, as recited in claim 8; a layer comprising a polymer material, as recited in claim 12; curing of the formed layer, as recited in claim 13; and boron nitride as the ceramic material, as recited in claim 16.
Xie does not disclose a dielectric constant for the coating composition or for any of the thermoplastic matrix materials it identifies. Xie further does not disclose an individual layer thickness of 1 nm to 3 nm for the boron nitride nanosheets, for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) above.
US 4,849,284 (“Arthur ’284”) discloses a ceramic filled fluoropolymer-based electrical substrate material comprising 33 to 40 weight percent fluoropolymer and 55 to 71 weight percent silane-coated ceramic filler (Col. 4, Ln. 54-61). The working examples report filler volume fractions of 0.554 to 0.612 and dielectric constants of 2.64 to 2.9 (Table 1). The same examples report porosities of 1.3 to 18.1 volume percent, the examples of lowest porosity exhibiting the highest dielectric constants. Arthur ’284 is pertinent to claim 5, in that it discloses a ceramic-filled fluoropolymer composite at a ceramic content within the range recited in claim 5, reports dielectric constants exceeding the maximum of 2.5 required by claim 1, and indicates that those reported values are attributable in part to a porosity that claim 1 excludes.
US 5,354,611 (“Arthur ’611”) discloses a dielectric composite comprising a fluoropolymer matrix and from about 20 volume percent to about 70 volume percent coated inorganic particles, the particles comprising hollow inorganic microspheres and a hydrophobic coating on the microspheres, the material exhibiting a dielectric constant of less than about 2.5 (Col. 1, Ln. 55-63). Arthur ’611 is pertinent to claim 1 in that it identifies hollow, and therefore void-containing, filler particles as the means by which a ceramic-filled fluoropolymer composite is brought to a dielectric constant below 2.5.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John DeRusso whose telephone number is (571)270-1287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00 AM-6:00 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, Sam Zhao, can be reached at (571) 270-5343. 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 J DeRusso/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights