DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22 and 37 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 17, 19-21 and 23-32, 34-36, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimura et al., US 2016/0215084 A1, in view of Dougherty et al., US 5468820.
Regarding claim 17, Shimura teaches a curable inkjet composition for printed circuit boards (Abstract), the composition comprising a polymerizable compound having a vinyl group ([0081], corresponding to the claimed component “(i)”), a blocked isocyanate crosslinking agent ([0054], corresponding to the claimed component “(ii)”), and a polymerizable methacrylate ([0038]-[0041]).
The teachings of Shimura differ from the present invention in that although Shimura teaches the use a polymerizable compound having a vinyl group as an active diluent, Shimura of does not teach any of the specific polymerizable vinyl compounds listed in the present claim 1. Dougherty, however, teaches that the use of n-vinyl caprolactam as a reactive diluent in such compositions results in a product with improved adhesion, reduced discoloration, and improved protective properties (Abstract, col. 1 ln. 5-35, col. 2 ln. 3-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use n-vinyl caprolactam as the vinyl-containing reactive diluent of Shimura, because doing so would result in a product with improved adhesion, reduced discoloration, and improved protective properties.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Shimura teaches the use of a blocked isocyanate ([0054]) that may be an isocyanuate ([0065]).
Regarding claim 21, Shimura teaches the use of a triazine compound ([0044]).
Regarding claim 23, Shimura teaches that the methacrylate may be present in an amount of 5-50 parts by mass relative to the total weight of the composition ([0041]).
Regarding claims 24 and 25, Shimura teaches the use of lauryl acrylate or lauryl methacrylate ([0082]).
Regarding claim 26, Shimura teaches a viscosity of 5 to 20 mPa.s ([0086). Although Shimura teaches this viscosity range at 50 ⁰C rather than the claimed 45 ⁰C, it is highly likely that the viscosity of the product of Shimura would still overlap with the claimed range at 45 ⁰C. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an appropriate viscosity for the ink of Shimura based on the intended use and desired application temperature, as Shimura explicitly teaches adjusting the viscosity of the ink to facilitate jet printing ([0086]).
Regarding claims 27-30, Shimura teaches a PCB board comprising a solder mask made by applying the above ink composition to a dielectric substrate and heating to a temperature of 80 – 200 ⁰C ([0090]).
Regarding claim 31-32, 34-36, and 38, Shimura teaches that the ink composition may be used to make a solder resist layer (ie, a solder mask) on a PCB ([0135]). Regarding claim 31 specifically, although Shimura does not explicitly state that such a PCB comprises a dielectric substrate and conductive circuitry, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that such a PCB would necessarily comprised a dielectric substrate and conductive circuitry.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3-18-2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive with respect to claims 22 and 37. Accordingly, the rejections of claims 22 and 37 have been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 7, 19-21 and 23-32, 34-36, and 38 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the present rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ian A Rummel whose telephone number is (571)270-5692. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternating Fridays, 8:30-5:00.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/IAN A RUMMEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights