DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-4, 6 and 8-13 are pending as amended on 10/27/2025. Claims 10-13 stand withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
No new ground of rejection has been set forth below. Changes to a previously set forth rejection have been made solely to reflect the incorporation of dependent claims 5 and 7 into claim 1. Therefore, this action is properly made final.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2020/0407506) in view of Higuchi et al (US 20120292800).
As to claims 1, 3, 4, 8 and 9, Kim discloses a polyamide-imide (PAI) film that is excellent in optical and mechanical properties [0336], as well as a display device which comprises a display unit and a cover window comprising a PAI film and functional layer [0243], as recited in claims 8 and 9. Kim exemplifies a PAI from TFMB, 6FDA, BPDA and TPC (Table 2, Ex 8b) wherein the imide:amide ratio is 35:65 (meeting instant claim 7), the modulus is 6.65 GPa (i.e., above 5 GPa), the haze is 0.54 (i.e., less than 1%), and the YI is 2.7 (i.e., less than 5).
Kim fails to teach measuring the properties of the film at six arbitrary points in the film, and therefore, fails to teach a uniformity of properties corresponding to the RC value recited in claims 1, 8 and 9, and to the average value deviation rates as recited in claims 1, 3 and 4.
Higuchi discloses a polyimide film whose thickness is homogeneous in the width direction and in the length direction, and which can be used in various applications, including a cover material for a display [0147]. Higuchi discloses that (during the heat treatment of a polyimide precursor cast film to complete imidization) a contraction degree of the self-supporting film during the post-heating varies depending on a solvent content of the self-supporting film. A portion having a large solvent content contracts to a large extent, which applies a large stress to the film, and causes variations in polyimide film physical properties and a dimensional error [0004]. Higuchi discloses a method which allows production of a polyimide film having physical properties with in-plane uniformity [0016].
Higuchi’s method includes steps of measuring the solvent content of the film [0018], and based on the measurement result, increasing the temperature corresponding to a portion having a higher solvent content in a width direction [0019] and decreasing the temperature corresponding to a portion having a lower solvent content in a width direction [0020]. Higuchi discloses the use of a heater (such as infrared heater) which includes a plurality of blocks having different temperatures in a width direction [0081, 0089]. As a result, the contraction degree of the self-supporting film can be rendered substantially uniform, solving troubles such as variations in physical properties of a polyimide film and a dimensional error thereof [0114].
Considering Higuchi’s disclosure, when forming a polyimide film, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to render the contraction degree substantially uniform during heating in order to increase the uniformity of physical properties throughout the final polyimide film. It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art, therefore, to have formed a PAI film, as taught by Kim, by reducing variations in the physical properties of the polyimide film utilizing techniques disclosed by Higuchi, including reducing variations to within the presently recited RC range recited in claim 1 and deviation rates recited in claims 1, 3 and 4.
As to claim 2, modified Kim suggests a film according to claim 1, as set forth above. Kim fails to teach the CTE of the film. However, Kim exemplifies films formed from the same monomers as utilized in the instant examples, and having imide:amide ratios within the presently recited range. Given that the CTE of a PAI film substantially depends on the chemical structure of the PAI, there is reasonable basis to conclude that modified Kim suggests a PAI having CTE values which are substantially the same as the CTE values of the instant PAI films (i.e., within the claimed range of 20-40 ppm/C).
As to claim 6, Kim discloses a filler [0210].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered.
In view of the amendment to claim 1 resolving the lack of antecedent basis and incorporating limitations previously recited in claims 5 and 7, all rejections except for the rejection over Kim in view of Higuchi have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues (p 14) that there is no disclosure in Kim and Higuchi regarding the ratio of CTE values in the MD and TD directions, and that Kim and Higuchi do not recognize that ratio as being important. However, the presently recited ratio of CTE values and the presently recited deviation rates of haze, YI and modulus are indications of film uniformity (the claims require there to be a minimal difference in a measured property at six different points in three partitioned regions of a film). Higuchi was relied on as a secondary reference to show that one would have been motivated to decrease variations in film physical properties by providing a film having a homogenous thickness in width and length directions. As set forth in the rejection of record, Higuchi teaches how to render the contraction degree of a self-supporting film substantially uniform, and teaches that the disclosed method solves the problem of variations in physical properties of a polyimide film and a dimensional error thereof (see paragraphs 19 and 20 of the action mailed on 7/28/2025). Applicant’s arguments fail to overcome the rejection of record because they do not address the manner in which Higuchi was relied on as a secondary reference.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the modified 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 RACHEL KAHN whose telephone number is (571)270-7346. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8-5.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. 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.
/RACHEL KAHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights