CTFR 17/907,891 CTFR 88632 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Amendment The previous rejections are maintained. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-13 , is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2012-041452 A to Yoshino et al. (hereinafter Yoshino) . Regarding claims 1, 3, 6-13 , Yoshino teaches a polyhydroxyurethane compound having the formula PNG media_image1.png 119 527 media_image1.png Greyscale (para 12), with an average number molecular weight (Mn) of 200-100000 (para 40), which overlaps and meets the claimed range. Specifically, a methacryloylated silicone-modified polyhydroxyurethane compound A2 is obtained by reacting bisphenol A epoxy resin, with a silicone diamine, and 2-methacryloyloxyethyl isocyanate (para 197), which has a Mn of 44,800 with a Mw/Mn of 2.51, (para 197), which correlates to a Mw of 112,448, which meets the claimed Mw, and the above methacryloylated silicone-modified polyhydroxyurethane further meets the urethane resin with a urethane bond, methyacryloyl group, siloxane bond and methacryloyl group or claim 13. Yoshino teaches the polyhydroxyurethane compound is soluble in a solvent (para 13), such as N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (para 168) or ethyl acetate (Table 4, para 186-187). The above is applied is mixed in a composition, applied upon a polyimide film and dried to have a thickness of 30 microns to form a laminate. (para 206). Yoshino further teaches that the above polyhydroxyurethane compound gives the composition good adhesion where more than 90/100 squares are not peeled off, showing good adhesion/peel strength (para 28, 209 and Table 8, para 218). Regarding the claimed peel strength and tensile strength, one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation for the laminate of Yoshino to have the claimed peel strength and tensile strength properties between the polyimide layer and the urethane resin layer of the claimed invention because Yoshino teaches a substantially identical laminate to the claimed invention such as a laminate with the same polyimide substrate layer, and a substantially similar urethane resin layer having the claimed urethane and siloxane bond that is applied and dried to form the layer upon the polyimide layer, which the Applicant has similarly taught in their specification, and this further evident by the teachings of Yoshino which teaches that the above polyhydroxyurethane compound gives the composition good adhesion where more than 90/100 squares are not peeled off, showing good adhesion/peel strength (para 28, 209 and Table 8, para 218). See MPEP 2112.01. (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)) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of US 2016/0040027 A1 to Woo et al. (hereinafter Woo) . Regarding claims 4, and 5 , as cited above, Yoshino teaches claim 1. Yoshino does not explicitly teach the polyimide thickness and polyimide listed in claims 4-5. However, Woo teaches a polyimide cover substrate comprising a polyimide film with a protection coating layer of a urethane acrylate on at least one side (See abstract) used in the same field of flexible electronic devices (para 1-4), wherein the polyimide is a transparent film having a thickness of 10-100 microns (para 41-42), and is obtained by dissolving an aromatic polyimide powder in DMAc to form a solution, applying the solution upon a plate and drying to form a film which is cooled and separated to form the polyimide film. (para 89). Woo also teaches that the polyimide film is transparent with inherent heat resistance, where the thickness range gives the desired transparency and thermal expansion. (para 41-42). It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to use the resin composition of Yoshino as a coating in combination with the aromatic polyimide substrate film of Woo because Woo teaches the same field of flexible electronic devices (para 1-4), Woo teaches that the polyimide film is transparent with inherent heat resistance, where the thickness range gives the desired transparency and thermal expansion, (para 41-42) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 2 is 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. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As cited above, Yoshino is the closest prior art. Yoshino does not teach the formulae (11), (21) or (31) . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 03/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 5-6, the Applicant argues that Yoshino does not teach the “urethane resin” that is “soluble” in a solvent. This is not persuasive because, as cited above, Yoshino specifically teaches a methacryloylated silicone-modified polyhydroxyurethane compound A2 is obtained by reacting bisphenol A epoxy resin, with a silicone diamine, and 2-methacryloyloxyethyl isocyanate (para 197), which has a Mn of 44,800 with a Mw/Mn of 2.51, (para 197), which correlates to a Mw of 112,448, which meets the claimed Mw, and the above methacryloylated silicone-modified polyhydroxyurethane further meets the urethane resin with a urethane bond, methyacryloyl group, siloxane bond and methacryloyl group. Yoshino also teaches the polyhydroxyurethane compound is soluble in a solvent (para 13), such as N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (para 168) or ethyl acetate in the examples (Table 4, para 186-187). On page 6, the Applicant appears to be arguing that Yoshino teaches a photosensitive resin composition layer that is applied to a polyimide film and not the claimed “urethane resin”. This is not persuasive because the claims are directed to a urethane resin layer containing a urethane resin, and as cited above, Yoshino teaches the photosensitive resin composition layer which contains the claimed urethane resin. On page 6-7, it appears that the Applicant is arguing that the urethane resin layer is obtained from a dissolved urethane resin that is dried, while the photosensitive resin composition is “photo-cured,” before the adhesion evaluation. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the urethane layer obtained from a urethane resin dissolved in a solvent and dried, peel strength measured of dried layer, etc.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns , 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). It appears that claim should recite “a urethane resin layer obtained from a dried and solidified urethane resin composition containing a urethane resin dissolved in a solvent, wherein the urethane resin has a urethane bond and siloxane bond and a weight average molecular weight of 52,200 to 260,000…” On page 7, the Applicant argues that Yoshino does not each the Mn of the photocured photosensitive resin composition. This is not persuasive because the claim appears to be directed to the “urethane resin” and not the “layer” which contains it and Yoshino teaches the claimed Mn of the urethane resin as cited above. Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HA S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7395. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, Flex schedule 7:30am-4:00pm. 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. /HA S NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766 Application/Control Number: 17/907,891 Page 2 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 17/907,891 Page 3 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 17/907,891 Page 4 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 17/907,891 Page 5 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 17/907,891 Page 6 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 17/907,891 Page 7 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 17/907,891 Page 8 Art Unit: 1766
Prosecution Insights