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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The previous restriction and 103 rejections have been maintained, but the position has been modified due to the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 11, 13, and 16 is (are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Asada et al. (WO 2018181893, US 20210116809 as English equivalent) in view of Ohashi et al. (WO 2019044874, US 20200209745 as English equivalent, listed on IDS and ISR).
As to claims 1, 11, 13, and 16, Asada (abs., claims, examples, 1, 180) discloses a photosensitive polyamic acid (polyimide precursor) composition:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, wherein the polyamic acid is polymerized via ODPA polymerized with 2,2'-Dimethyl[1,1'-biphenyl]-4,4'-diamine (DMAP) and 2-hydroxytheyl methacrylate.
Asada is silent on the claimed diamines.
In the same area of endeavor of producing a photosensitive polyamic acid (polyimide precursor) composition, Ohashi (abs., claims, examples, 1, 8, 35, 37-38, 77-78 ) discloses a similar photosensitive polyamic acid (polyimide precursor) composition, wherein the resultant polyimide shows low permittivity and loss and DMAP, BAPP, and
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
are functionally equivalent diamines to produce such polyimides.
Therefore, as to claims 1, 11, 13, and 16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced DMAP of Asada with BAPP or
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
of Ohashi because of their equivalent functionality as diamines to produce a photosensitive polyamic acid that yields a polyimide with low permittivity and loss. These conditions appear to equally apply to both productions using similar polyamic acid/polyimide raw materials. This adaptation would have obviously yielded instantly claimed structures.
Claim(s) 1, 11, 13, and 16 is (are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ohashi et al. (WO 2019044874, US 20200209745 as English equivalent, listed on IDS and ISR).
As to claims 1, 10-11, 13, and 16, Ohashi (abs., claims, examples, 1, 8, 35, 37-38, 77-78) discloses a similar photosensitive polyamic acid (polyimide precursor) composition, wherein the resultant polyimide shows low permittivity and loss and 4,4'-bis(4-aminophenoxy)biphenyl, BAPP, and
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
are functionally equivalent diamines to produce such polyimides. Exemplary polyamic acid includes:
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Therefore, as to claims 1, 10-11, 13, and 16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced 4,4'-bis(4-aminophenoxy)biphenyl in the exemplary polyamic acid with BAPP or
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
because of their equivalent functionality as diamines to produce a photosensitive polyamic acid that yields a polyimide with low permittivity and loss. These conditions appear to equally apply to both productions using similar polyamic acid/polyimide raw materials. This adaptation would have obviously yielded instantly claimed structures.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim(s) 8 is(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(s) 8 is(are) allowable over the closest prior art: Asada et al. (WO 2018181893, US 20210116809 as English equivalent) in view of Ohashi et al. (WO 2019044874, US 20200209745 as English equivalent, listed on IDS and ISR).
Asada and Ohashi fail to teach the claimed structure requiring e≥4 and f≥2.
Therefore, claim 8 is(are) allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”.
Response to Arguments
The argument for allowance of amended claims has been fully considered but not persuasive.
Applicant's argument (pg15-17) of unexpected results is persuasive but insufficient. Evidence of unexpected results must be factually supported by an appropriate affidavit of declaration. See MPEP § 716.01(c). Unexpected results must, in actuality, be unexpected. Unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the claims. The applicant must show unexpected results over the entire claimed range to support unexpected results for the entire range and generic structures. The applicant merely showed the result of a species (ODPA/DMAP/HEMP), while claims embraces a gigantic amount of species regarding the groups, such as those having e≥3, f≥2, g≥0, h≥0. Therefore, Applicant should compare several compositions containing claimed components of A, B, and C in amounts at several data points over the claimed range to several compositions containing the same claimed components of A, B, and C in amounts at several data points outside of the claimed range, including data points close to and far from the claimed range. The examiner reminds applicants’ that these results are “UNEXPECTED”, therefore how can one logically predict what the results would be for distinctly different polymers. Thus, the examiner asserts the showing of unexpected results is insufficient for the claims in their present state. If applicants’ were to limit their claims to what is shown in the declaration, more favorable consideration would be given.
Therefore, as to claims 1, 10-11, 13, and 16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced DMAP of Asada with BAPP or
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
of Ohashi because of their equivalent functionality as diamines to produce a photosensitive polyamic acid that yields a polyimide with low permittivity and loss. These conditions appear to equally apply to both productions using similar polyamic acid/polyimide raw materials. This adaptation would have obviously yielded instantly claimed structures.
For the same reasons above, applicant’s individual attack (pg17) on Ohashi is not persuasive.
Applicant's argument (pg17) of unexpected results is unpersuasive and insufficient. Applicant fails to compare the closest art, Ohashi’s PAA cited for the rejection:
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The PAAs in Instant Ex.1 and 2 contains no HEMA component as claimed.
Therefore, as to claims 1, 10-11, 13, and 16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced 4,4'-bis(4-aminophenoxy)biphenyl in the exemplary polyamic acid with BAPP or
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
because of their equivalent functionality as diamines to produce a photosensitive polyamic acid that yields a polyimide with low permittivity and loss. These conditions appear to equally apply to both productions using similar polyamic acid/polyimide raw materials. This adaptation would have obviously yielded instantly claimed structures.
Therefore, the previous restriction and 103 rejections have been maintained, but the position has been modified due to the amendment.
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 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7378. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs. 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached on 571.572.1302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHANE FANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights