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 Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “hr” should be “hours” to avoid confusion. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: “Kgf/cm” should be “kgf/cm” to avoid confusion. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2012/0085570 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Kim teaches a flexible metal clad laminate using a polyimide resin (i.e., film); wherein the polyimide comprises a copolymerized polyimide formed from a dianhydride comprising of 3,3',4,4'-biphenyltetracarboxylic acid dianhydride, (BPDA) and pyromellitic dianhydride (PMDA) wherein the mixing ratio of BPDA to PMDA is preferably in a range of 60 to 90:10 to 40 mol %; and the diamine comprising a mixture of p-phenylenediamine (p-PDA), 4,4'-oxydianiline (4,4'-ODA), and 2,2'-Dimethyl-4,4'-diaminobiphenyl (m-TB-HG) (para 19, 20, 22, 35).
Kim teaches copolymerized polyimide formed from a dianhydride comprising of 3,3',4,4'-biphenyltetracarboxylic acid dianhydride, (BPDA) and pyromellitic dianhydride (PMDA) wherein the mixing ratio of BPDA to PMDA is preferably in a range of 60 to 90:10 to 40 mol ; and suggests the polyimide resin has a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) ranging from about 10 to 30 ppm/°C (para 20, 43). These ranges substantially overlap that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Kim, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding the limitation, the diamine comprising 10 to 40 mol% of p-phenylenediamine (p-PDA), 30 to 60 mol% of 2,2'-dimethyl-4,4'-diaminobiphenyl (m-TB), and 10 to 40 mol% of 4,4'-oxydianiline (ODA), based on a total mole number of the diamine; it would have been obvious to adjust the molar concentration of p-PDA, m-TB, and ODA, based on a total mole number of the copolymerized polyimide through routine experimentation, since "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05 II A).
Regarding the limitation “herein the copolymerized polyimide comprises 25 to 40% of a copolymerized segment composed of 3,3',4,4'-biphenyltetracarboxylic dianhydride (BPDA) and p-phenylenediamine (p-PDA), based on a total mole number of the copolymerized polyimide;” it would have been obvious to adjust the molar ratio of the dianhydride to that of diamine to arrive at the 25 to 40% of a copolymerized segment composed of 3,3',4,4'-biphenyltetracarboxylic dianhydride (BPDA) and p-phenylenediamine (p-PDA), based on a total mole number of the copolymerized polyimide through routine experimentation, since "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05 II A).
Regarding the limitation “a Young’s modulus of greater than 7 GPa,” Kim teaches or would have rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the composition of the polyimide film, so it is deemed to possess this property and/or functionality.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). (MPEP § 2112.01 I).
Regarding claim 3, The limitation of the instant claim 3 is a product by process limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the process results in a product that is structurally distinct from the prior art. The process of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claim product differs in kind from those of the prior art (MPEP § 2113). No difference can be discerned between the product that results from the process steps recited in claim 3 and the product of Kim. Furthermore, Kim teaches the polyimide resin layer is formed on the metal clad is heated (i.e., baked) in temperature ranges from about 250 to 400 °C (para 49-50).
Regarding claims 4-6, Kim teaches its resin is used to form a laminate board a polyimide film of claim 1 and a metal layer attached to the polyimide film, an adhesive force between the metal layer and the polyimide film is greater than 0.65 kgf/cm (e.g., greater than 0.80 kgf/cm) wherein the polyimide film is surface treated using plasma; wherein the plasma is atmospheric plasma and uses at least one gas selected from the group consisting of nitrogen, argon, oxygen. (para 43-52).
Regarding the limitation “and the adhesive force between the metal layer and the polyimide film is greater than 0.5 kgf/cm after baking at 150°C for 24 hr,” Kim teaches or would have rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the composition of the polyimide film as well as the process of making the laminate, so it is deemed to possess this property and/or functionality.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). (MPEP § 2112.01 I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights