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 .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments, see page 2, line 11, filed 23 December 2025, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-15 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Goto et al. (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 2007-047247 A), hereinafter Goto; and Claim 16-18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Goto et al. (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 2007-047247 A), hereinafter Goto; and further in view of Muro et al. (Japanese Patent Publication no. WO 2012/074136 A1), hereinafter Muro; have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the silsesquioxane compound of Goto does not comprise part of a siloxane copolymer. This argument is not persuasive. Goto teaches silsesquioxane compounds comprising both acryl and epoxy functional groups and teaches that the silsesquioxane compounds have two or more functional groups. Further, these compounds are reacted to a binder polymer and an ethylenically unsaturated group-containing compounds, both of which further add thermosetting and photocurable functional groups to the copolymer. Applicant further argues that the molecular weight of the binder polymer taught by Goto is unrelated to the claimed molecular weight of the siloxane copolymer of the present application. This argument is not persuasive. There is no limitation by the present claims that the siloxane copolymer consists entirely of siloxane subunits. Indeed, the dependent Claim 9 of the present application limits the siloxane subunits therein as comprising as little as 1 mol % of the siloxane copolymer claimed. Furthermore, Applicant further argues that the purported advantages of the present application, which are not claimed, overcome the rejection of record. This argument is not persuasive. Firstly, these purported advantages of low temperature curing and suitability for flexible display devices are not claimed. Furthermore, as stated above and below, Goto and Goto in view of Muro teach all structural limitations of the present application. MPEP § 2112.01 states: “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition . . . 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).” Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of record is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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:
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Goto et al. (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 2007-047247 A), hereinafter Goto.
5. Regarding Claims 1-15 and 19, Goto teaches (Paragraphs [0013-0024]) a siloxane copolymer comprising a thermosetting functional group. Goto teaches (Paragraphs [0013-0024]) a siloxane copolymer comprising a photocurable functional group. Goto teaches (Paragraphs [0031-0039]) a photoinitiator. Goto teaches (Paragraphs [0051 and 0066-0067]) a solvent. Goto teaches (Paragraphs [0013-0024]) the thermosetting functional group has a structure comprising at least one selected from an epoxy group. Goto teaches (Paragraphs [0013-0024]) the photocurable functional group has a structure comprising an unsaturated photocurable functional group. Goto teaches (Paragraphs [0013-0024]) the photocurable functional group has a structure comprising an acrylate group. Goto teaches (Paragraphs [0034 and 0039]) the photoinitiator is included in an amount of 0.1 to 30 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the siloxane copolymer. Goto teaches (Paragraphs [0023 and 0062-0063]) the photoinitiator comprises a radical photoinitiator. Goto teaches (Paragraphs [0031-0039]) the photoinitiator comprises an ionic photoinitiator. Goto teaches (Paragraphs [0064]) the radical photoinitiator is included in an amount of 0.1 to 20 parts by weight, with respect to 100 parts by weight of the siloxane copolymer. Goto teaches (Paragraphs [0034 and 0039]) the ionic photoinitiator is included in an amount of 0.1 to 10 parts by weight, with respect to 100 parts by weight of the siloxane copolymer. Goto teaches (Paragraphs [0013-0024]) the siloxane copolymer comprises repeating units respectively represented by Formula 1 of the present application. Goto teaches (Paragraphs [0013-0024]) the siloxane copolymer comprises repeating units respectively represented by 2 of the present application. Goto teaches (Paragraphs [0013-0024]) in the siloxane copolymer the repeating units represented by Formula 1 of the present application is included in an amount of at least 1 mol %. Goto teaches (Paragraphs [0013-0024]) in the siloxane copolymer the repeating units represented by Formula 2 of the present application is included in an amount of at least 1 mol %. Goto teaches (Paragraph [0055]) the siloxane copolymer has average molecular weight of 3,000 to 30,000 g/mol which is a polystyrene-converted weight. Herein, Goto teaches (Paragraph [0063]) copolymerization of the siloxane copolymer with the binder polymer therein. Goto teaches (Paragraphs [0013-0024]) the siloxane copolymer further comprises a repeating unit represented by Formula 3 of the present application. Goto teaches (Paragraphs [0013-0024 and 0091-0123]) the siloxane copolymer comprises 50 mol % to 90 mol % of the repeating unit represented by Formula 3 of the present application. Herein, Goto teaches condensates of siloxanes of formulae (1), (2), and (3) therein and provides a number of siloxanes that are at least 50% monomers within the scope of Formula 3 of the present application, including but not limited to: EP0402 and MA0702. Goto teaches (Paragraphs [0031-0032]) the photosensitive resin composition further comprises a polyfunctional monomer or oligomer having an ethylenically unsaturated bond. Goto teaches (Paragraph [0032]) the composition comprises 1 to 50 parts by weight of the multifunctional monomer or oligomer having an ethylenically unsaturated bond with respect to 100 parts by weight of the siloxane copolymer. Goto teaches (Paragraphs [0031-0032]) the multifunctional monomer or oligomer has 2 to 4 functional groups. Goto teaches (Paragraph [0067]) the solvent is at least one selected from the group consisting of tetrahydrofuran and isopropyl alcohol.
6. However, Goto fails to explicitly teach all components of the composition limited by the present application with a single experimental example. That said, all components of the composition are described with sufficient detail by the prior art. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of Goto would have found it obvious to try the combining the prior art elements of Goto which meet the limitations of the present application above according to known methods to yield predictable results. Herein, Goto included each element claimed by the present application for the relevant claims, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods taught by Goto, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Furthermore, Goto teaches one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable given that all of the elements are of the relevant claims of the present application are taught by Goto and are, even if not taught in a single experimental example, are taught as being functional alternatives to achieve predictable results in Goto’s stated aim of providing a photosensitive paste composition which satisfies both of pattern processability by
photolithography and shape retention in baking, with respect to a photosensitive composition used for various members of a flat-panel display, etc. (See: Goto Abstract)
7. Claim 16-18 and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Goto et al. (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 2007-047247 A), hereinafter Goto; and further in view of Muro et al. (Japanese Patent Publication no. WO 2012/074136 A1), hereinafter Muro.
8. Regarding Claim 16-18 and 20, Goto teaches all limitations of Claims 14 and 1, respectively, above. However, Goto fails to explicitly teach the multifunctional oligomers comprise one or more oligomers selected from the group consisting of aliphatic urethane acrylate oligomers, aromatic urethane acrylate oligomers, epoxy acrylate oligomers, epoxy methacrylate oligomers, polyester acrylate oligomers, silicone acrylate oligomers, melamine acrylate oligomers, and dendritic acrylate oligomers. Furthermore, Goto fails to explicitly teach the multifunctional monomer comprises: a first monomer that is a di-, tri-, tetra-, or penta-functional group; and a second monomer that is a hexa- or higher-functional group. Furthermore, Goto fails to explicitly teach a molar ratio of the first monomer to the second monomer is 3:7 to 4:6. Furthermore, Goto fails to explicitly teach a display device comprising a cured body of the photosensitive resin composition.
9. Muro teaches (Paragraphs [0067]) the multifunctional oligomers comprise polyester acrylate oligomers. Muro teaches (Paragraphs [0067-0068]) the multifunctional monomer comprises: a first monomer that is a di-, tri-, tetra-, or penta-functional group; and a second monomer that is a hexa- or higher-functional group, therein further teaching preferred monomers of dipentaerythritol hexaacrylate and tricyclodecane dimethanol diacrylate. Muro teaches (Paragraphs [0015]) composition comprising said compounds achieves high light-transmitting properties and excellent resolution by alkaline development.
10. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goto to incorporate the teachings of Muro wherein the multifunctional oligomers comprise polyester acrylate oligomers and the multifunctional monomer comprises a first monomer that is a di-, tri-, tetra-, or penta-functional group and a second monomer that is a hexa- or higher-functional group. Doing so would result in composition that achieves high light-transmitting properties and excellent resolution by alkaline development, as recognized by Muro.
11. Goto in view of Muro teaches all limitations of Claim 18 save for: “a molar ratio of the first monomer to the second monomer is 3:7 to 4:6.” Herein, Muro not only teaches “the multifunctional monomer comprises: a first monomer that is a di-, tri-, tetra-, or penta-functional group; and a second monomer that is a hexa- or higher-functional group,” but further teaches (Paragraph [0068]) preferred monomers of dipentaerythritol hexaacrylate and tricyclodecane dimethanol diacrylate. Muro further teaches (Paragraph [0069]) a mixture of monomers. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A) states:
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here 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).
Herein, Goto in view of Muro teaches all limitations save for a difference in concentration of the first monomer and the second monomer.
12. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goto to incorporate the teachings of Muro wherein a molar ratio of the first monomer to the second monomer is 3:7 to 4:6. Doing so would be the result of routine experimentation to discover the optimum or workable ranges of, in this case, molar ratios of the first monomer to the second monomer.
13. Muro teaches (Paragraphs [0008-0040]) a display device comprising a cured body of the photosensitive resin composition. Muro teaches (Paragraphs [0039-0040]) said display device with excellent resolution.
14. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goto to incorporate the teachings of Muro wherein a display device comprising a cured body of the photosensitive resin composition. Doing so would result a display device that achieves excellent resolution, as recognized by Muro.
Conclusion
15. 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).
16. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to RICHARD D CHAMPION at telephone number (571) 272-0750. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Mon-Fri EST.
18. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MARK F HUFF can be reached at (571) 272-1385. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
19. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
20. 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.
/R.D.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/MARK F. HUFF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1737