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 § 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 3 is 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.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites that the block further contains a structural unit derived from an aromatic hydrocarbon compound, and in the block (b2), a content ratio of the structural unit derived from the conjugated diene compound to the structural unit derived from the aromatic hydrocarbon compound is as claimed. Claim 3 is dependent from claim 1, which recites a structural unit derived from an aromatic hydrocarbon compound. Since claim 3 recites that the block further contains a structural unit derived from an aromatic hydrocarbon compound, there are two structural units derived from an aromatic hydrocarbon compound. However, even though the claim references (b2), the claim references only “the structural unit derived from the aromatic hydrocarbon compound.” It is unclear which structural unit is referenced in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over JP 2021-176926 to Ishibashi, as evidenced by the machine translation.
Regarding claims 1-14, Ishibashi teaches a resin composition that can express excellent dielectric properties while having excellent heat resistance, a prepreg including the resin composition, a laminate, a resin film, a multilayer printed wiring board, and a semiconductor package (Ishibashi, Abstract). Ishibashi teaches that the resin composition has (A) a polyphenylene ether derivative having an ethylenically unsaturated bond-containing group, (B) at least one selected from the group consisting of a maleimide compound having two or more N-substituted maleimide groups and a derivative thereof, (C) a conjugated diene polymer or a modified conjugated diene polymer, (D) a styrenic thermoplastic elastomer, and (E) an imidazole compound or a modified imidazole compound (Id., Abstract, claims 1-15). Ishibashi teaches a maleimide compound (b1) having two or more N-substituted maleimide groups, such as MIR-3000, and a polyaminobismaleimide compound having structural units derived from maleimide compound (b1) and structural units derived from diamine compound (b2), such as 3,3'-dimethyl-5,5'-diethyl-4,4'-diphenylmethanebismaleimide (Id., paragraphs 0049, 0171). Ishibashi teaches that component D is a hydrogenated styrene-based thermoplastic elastomer such as a styrene ethylene butylene styrene copolymer, having a weight-average molecular weight particularly preferably 70,000 to 100,000, wherein the structural units are derived from butadiene and isoprene (Id., paragraphs 0120-0122, 0173).
Regarding claim 3, Ishibashi teaches that from the viewpoints of dielectric properties, adhesion to a conductor, heat resistance, glass transition temperature and thermal expansion coefficient, the content of each of the monomer units is preferably 5 to 80 mass % (Ishibashi, paragraph 0121). Therefore, the claimed ratio appears met by the overlapping mass% ranges.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Ishibashi teaches that b1 includes bis(4-maleimidophenyl)methane, m-phenylenebismaleimide, polyphenylmethanemaleimide, and biphenyl aralkyl-type maleimide (Ishibashi, paragraphs 0050, 0177). Additionally, Ishibashi teaches the maleimide compound having three or more N-substituted maleimide groups in the molecule, such as polyphenylmethanemaleimide and biphenyl aralkyl-type maleimide (Id., paragraphs 0050, 0171).
Regarding claim 8, Ishibashi teaches that the resin composition contains an inorganic filler (Ishibashi, paragraph 0132-0134).
Regarding claims 10-14, Ishibashi teaches a prepreg or a cured product, including a resin film, a laminated with a metal foil, a printed circuit board, and a semiconductor package (Ishibashi, claims 10-15).
Regarding claims 1-14, in the event it is shown that Ishibashi does not disclose the claimed invention with sufficient specificity, the invention is obvious because Ishibashi discloses the claimed constituents and discloses that they may be used alternatively or in combination.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over JP 2021-176926 to Ishibashi, as applied to claims 1-14 above, in view of US Pub. No. 2018/0002485 to Tanigawa.
Regarding claim 3, Ishibashi teaches that the component (D) may include styrene-butadiene-styrene block copolymer (SEBS, SBBS) (Ishibashi, paragraph 0120). Additionally, Tanigawa teaches a similar resin composition, prepreg, laminate, and multilayered printed wiring board having a maleimido group (Tanigawa, Abstract) and a thermoplastic resin, such as styrene-ethylene-butylene copolymers (Id., paragraphs 0118-0123). Tanigawa teaches that the content ratio of the styrene unit is preferably 10 to 80%, and being 20 to 70% by mass is more preferable (Id., paragraph 0122). Tanigawa teaches that when the content ratio of the styrene unit is in the above range, the thermoplastic elastomer is excellent in the film appearance, heat resistance and adhesiveneness (Id.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the resin composition of Ishibashi, and adjusting and varying the amount of styrene, such as within the claimed ratio, as taught by Tanigawa, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional resin composition suitable for use in prepregs and wiring boards, comprising amounts of styrene known in the art to predictably result in an elastomer excellent in the film appearance, heat resistance and adhesiveneness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights