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 1-25 are pending as amended on 9/29/2022.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-19) and species wherein the diene is PC-5 and the dienophile is MI-BisA in the reply filed on 12/15/2025 is acknowledged.
PNG
media_image1.png
202
541
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
147
411
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 3, 4, 7-10, 14, 15 (non-elected species) and 20-25 (non-elected invention) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species or invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “…a compound having di- or higher-functional dienophile groups.” The wording should be changed to reflect that the compound (rather than the groups) is di- or higher functional. For example, the claim could be amended to recite “…a compound having two or more dienophile groups.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites a resin formed by reaction of “a polymer having two or more conjugated diene structures in a polymer chain and a compound having di- or higher functional dienophile groups.”
Claims 5 and 6 depend from claim 2, and further limit “the polymer” by limiting the location within the polymer chain of “the conjugated diene structures” or “the dienophile structures.” It is unclear what “dienophile structures” are being referred to in claims 5 and 6, since claim 2 does not recite a polymer having any dienophile structure (i.e., there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the dienophile structures” recited in claims 5 and 6).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 11 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herr et al (US 2012/0082840).
This is a rejection of generic claims which encompass the elected species; this is not a rejection of the elected species.
As to claim 1, Herr discloses a non-linear polymer network formed from a multifunctional diene monomer or prepolymer and a multifunctional dienophile monomer or prepolymer [0007].
Herr discloses that the multifunctional diene has a general structure L-(X)P where “L” can be polycarbonate, X is a diene and P is greater than zero. The multifunctional dienophile has a structure L-(Y)Q wherein Y is a dienophile group and Q is greater than zero [0008, 0018]. Herr discloses aromatic bismaleimide resins as suitable dienophiles, which have structures according to the general formula L-(Y)Q wherein Y is maleimide and Q is 2 [0025]. When utilizing a bismaleimide resin as disclosed in [0025] as the dienophile, the diene component must have a structure according to Herr’s formula L-(X)P wherein P has a value greater than 2.1 (because a bismaleimide has a structure wherein Q is 2, and Herr discloses that at least one of P and Q have a value greater than 2.1 [0008]).
When forming a polymer network utilizing bismaleimide as a dienophile L-(Y)Q and utilizing a diene L-(X)P wherein P is greater than 2.1, as disclosed by Herr, arriving at a resin as recited in instant claim 1 requires selection of polycarbonate from Herr’s list of suitable “L” groups for the multifunctional diene in [0008]. Because arriving at a resin as presently recited requires making a minimum of two selections within Herr’s disclosure (e.g., selection of aromatic bismaleimide as the dienophile, and, selection of “polycarbonate” as the diene “L” group), Herr does not anticipate the present claims.
However, when forming an adhesive as taught by Herr, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select any “L” group named by Herr in order to tailor the suitability of an adhesive for an intended application, including “polycarbonate.” Moreover, case law has established that it is prima facie obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). MPEP 2143, rationale (E). It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art, therefore, to have formed a polymer network from an aromatic bismaleimide dienophile L-(Y)Q and a diene L-(X)P wherein P is greater than 2.1, as disclosed by Herr, utilizing a diene having any type of “L” unit named by Herr in [0008], including polycarbonate, thereby arriving at an aromatic polycarbonate resin as presently recited having bonds (i.e., aromatic linkages derived from the aromatic bismaleimide dienophile) between polymer chains (derived from the polycarbonate diene having greater than 2.1 diene groups) formed by Diels-Alder reaction (i.e., reaction between a maleimide group and a diene group).
As to claims 2 and 11, Herr suggests a resin according to claim 1, as set forth above. Herr teaches that the multifunctional diene has a general structure L-(X)P and names eight suitable “X” diene groups, including anthracene [0008], which is a conjugated diene structure as recited in claim 2, and has a structure according to DE1 recited in claim 11. It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected any appropriate “X” group from the eight options named by Herr, including anthracene, in order to provide a diene component, as taught by Herr, which is capable of reacting with Herr’s dienophile to form a polymer network.
As to claims 16-18, Herr suggests a resin according to claim 2, as set forth above. Herr teaches that suitable aromatic bismaleimide resins are particularly those having a structure
PNG
media_image3.png
135
178
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein Q is aromatic [0025], which meets instant formulas DP1 and DP2 in claims 16 and 17. As to claim 18, Herr teaches several “Q” structures on p 5. The fourth through sixth structures in the left column of p 5 and first five structures in the right column of p 5 are bismaleimides having a maleimide group attached to a phenoxy moiety as in DP4. Two of the structures (fifth and sixth in left column) are shown with a para-linkage, meeting instant DP4. The other disclosed structures have variable attachment positions of the maleimide group to the phenoxy moiety. In view of the limited possible points of attachment (three: para, meta, ortho), one having ordinary skill in the art would have immediately envisaged the structures taught by Herr with any of the three possible attachments, including para- as in instant formula DP4.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 11-13, 16, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flanagan et al (US 2020/0032060; cited by Applicant on IDS filed 9/29/2022).
This is not a rejection of the elected species. This is a rejection of generic claims which encompass the elected species. The generic claims encompass a resin formed by a Diels-Alder reaction between:
an aromatic polycarbonate comprising anthracene (i.e., conjugated diene) moieties in the main chain, and
a compound having two or more maleimide (i.e., dienophile) groups,
wherein the reaction of maleimide group(s) in the compound with anthracene group(s) in the polymer forms bonds between polymer chains.
As to claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 16 and 17, Flanagan discloses a blend comprising an aromatic polymer (P1) which can be a polycarbonate (PC) and which comprises at least one moiety M1, which has the following structure:
PNG
media_image4.png
138
246
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[0050-52]. The at least one moiety M1 can be at one or both ends of the polymer chain, and/or can be a pendant group, and/or can be included in the polymer chain [0060-65]. Flanagan discloses an embodiment wherein the moiety (M1) has a formula M1-e:
PNG
media_image5.png
124
407
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein “W” can be O-C(O)-O [0037] (i.e., a carbonate linkage). Flanagan teaches that a polycarbonate can be formed using anthracene moieties having two or more functional groups capable of participating in the polymerization reaction such that the anthracene moiety becomes incorporated into the polymer chain [0079]. Flanagan further teaches that the amount of (M1) units in the polymer can range from 0.1 to 100 mol% [0067].
A polycarbonate formed from polymerization of a polyfunctional anthracene moiety to provide anthracene moieties (M1-e) incorporated in the polymer chain, as disclosed by Flanagan, is an aromatic polycarbonate having two or more conjugated diene structures (anthracene structures) in the main chain of the polymer chain, as recited in claims 2 and 6. Additionally, the three possible M1 locations within a polymer chain disclosed by Flanagan in [0062-65] are separated by “and/or,” which means that M1 can be located at all three of the disclosed locations, or, located at only one of the disclosed locations. Therefore, one would have clearly envisaged embodiments wherein the moiety M1 is included in a polymer chain as taught in [0065], but not at both ends of the polymer chain as taught in [0063], meeting the recitations of instant claim 5.
Flanagan teaches that the blend can comprise a polymer P2 having maleimide end groups [0080]. Alternatively, Flanagan teaches including bismaleimides as thermal adduct formers [0232]. Flanagan exemplifies both types of embodiments: See Example 7, wherein chain extension of a polymer P1 is achieved by reaction (heating) of anthracene in P1 with maleimide-terminated polymer P2 [0297] (note that Flanagan characterizes the adduct formation as being “Diels-Alder” [0299]). See also Example 8, wherein chain extension of a polymer P1 is achieved by reaction (heating) of anthracene in P1 with 4,4’-bismaleimido-diphenylmethane as a thermal adduct former [0300].
Flanagan does not exemplify a reaction wherein P1 is a polycarbonate containing anthracene groups M1-e in a main chain.
Flanagan teaches that the polymer adducts are endowed with improved or additional properties with respect to those of the starting polymers [0002]. Flanagan further teaches that the formation of adducts represents a convenient way of obtaining high molecular weight polymeric structures from polymers of lower molecular weight, without rearrangement and randomization of polymer repeat units [0058]. Additionally, the adduct formation is reversible, and can be exploited for recycling, and to provide coatings that can be easily repaired by self-healing [0057].
Considering Flanagan’s disclosure regarding the advantages associated with the disclosed adduct formation, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select any appropriate structure for the anthracene-containing polymer P1 from the types disclosed by Flanagan, and any appropriate structure for the maleimide-containing adduct forming component (i.e., a polymer P2 or a thermal adduct former such as 4,4’-bismaleimido-diphenylmethane), in order to provide a final product (article, coating, etc.) having appropriate properties according to the requirements of a given application. It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art, therefore, to have formed an adduct by reaction of anthracene groups in a polycarbonate P1 with maleimide, as disclosed by Flanagan, by selecting any appropriate polycarbonate structure disclosed by Flanagan, including a polycarbonate formed from anthracene monomers having two or more functional groups capable of participating in the polymerization reaction [0079] (resulting in main chain units M1-e), thereby arriving at a resin according to instant claim 1. As to instant claims 2, 5, 6, 16 and 17, which further limit the dienophile to a compound (or, to a specific maleimide or bismaleimide): It would have been further obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have to have formed an adduct by reaction of anthracene groups in a polycarbonate P1 with maleimide, as disclosed by Flanagan, by selecting any appropriate maleimide structure disclosed by Flanagan in [0232], including e.g., 4,4’-bismaleimido-diphenylmethane (as exemplified in [0300]), which is a difunctional dienophile compound (as recited in claim 2) having a structure according to DP1 and DP2 recited in claims 16 and 17 (wherein X2 is a linking group containing covalently bonded carbon atoms). The fact that Flanagan discloses several types of polymer P1 and several types of maleimides to form an adduct with P1 does not render any particular combination of P1 or maleimide less obvious. A reference is available for all that it teaches to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories, Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
As to claims 11-13, Flanagan suggests a resin according to claim 2, as set forth above, wherein a difunctional anthracene unit M1-e has a structure:
PNG
media_image5.png
124
407
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein “W” can be O-C(O)-O [0037].
The formulas DE1, DE3 and DE11 recited in claims 11-13 are not limited to any particular isomer (i.e., not limited as far as the location of the carbonate groups which link anthracene monomer units in the main chain. Therefore, Flanagan’s unit M1-e (wherein W is O-C(O)-O) has a structure according to instant formula DE11, instant formula DE3 wherein X1 in DE3 is -O-C(O)-O- (and n is zero), and instant formula DE1 (wherein two R1 are linking groups containing carbon and oxygen atoms).
As to claim 19, Flanagan suggests a resin according to claim 1, as set forth above. Flanagan teaches four preferred aromatic diols for forming a polycarbonate [0223]. A polycarbonate formed using any one of the preferred diols named by Flanagan has a structure according to instant UN1, wherein Ar3 has a structure according to instant UN11, wherein m3 is 1. As discussed above, Flanagan teaches that a polycarbonate can be formed by the addition of anthracene moieties having two or more functional groups capable of participating in the polymerization reaction, such that the anthracene moiety becomes incorporated into the polymer chain [0079]. Flanagan further teaches that the amount of (M1) units in the polymer can range from 0.1 to 100 mol%, or from 0.5 to 25 mol% [0067]. A polycarbonate formed from a preferred diol monomer named by Flanagan in [0223], with the addition of a difunctional anthracene monomer to provide Flanagan’s disclosed M1-e units as taught in [0079], has a structure according to instant claim 19.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flanagan et al (US 2020/0032060) in view of Herr et al (US 2012/0082840).
The rejection over Flanagan above is incorporated here by reference.
Flanagan suggests a resin according to claims 2 and 16, as set forth above. As discussed previously, Flanagan teaches including bismaleimides as thermal adduct formers [0232], and exemplifies chain extension of a polymer P1 by reaction (heating) of anthracene in P1 with 4,4’-bismaleimido-diphenylmethane as a thermal adduct former [0300]. The bismaleimide exemplified by Flanagan includes a structure according to instant DP1 recited in claim 16 wherein X2 is a phenylene moiety. Flanagan further names other bismaleimides in [0232] (1,2-, 1,3-, and 1,4-phenylene dimaleimides) which include structures according to DP1 wherein X2 is a phenylene moiety. However, none of the bismaleimides named by Flanagan containing a phenoxy linkage, and therefore, Flanagan fails to name a bismaleimide which includes a structure according to DP4.
Herr discloses a non-linear polymer network formed from a multifunctional diene monomer or prepolymer and a multifunctional dienophile monomer or prepolymer [0007]. Herr discloses that the multifunctional diene has a general structure L-(X)P where “L” can be polycarbonate, X is a diene (including anthracene) and P is greater than zero. The multifunctional dienophile has a structure L-(Y)Q wherein Y is a dienophile group and Q is greater than zero [0008, 0018]. Herr discloses aromatic bismaleimide resins as suitable dienophiles, which have structures according to the general formula L-(Y)Q wherein Y is maleimide and Q is 2 [0025].
Herr teaches that suitable aromatic bismaleimide resins are particularly those having a structure
PNG
media_image3.png
135
178
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein Q is aromatic [0025]. Herr teaches several “Q” structures on p 5. The second and third “Q” structures shown in [0025] correspond to the same bismaleimides taught by Flanagan (i.e., phenylene dimaleimides and bismaleimido-diphenylmethane). Herr further teaches bismaleimides which include a maleimide group attached to a phenoxy moiety, as in instant DP4. See the fourth through sixth structures in the left column of p 5 and first five structures in the right column of p 5. [Two of the structures (fifth and sixth in left column) have a para-linkage, meeting instant DP4. The other disclosed structures have variable attachment positions of the maleimide group to the phenoxy moiety. In view of the limited possible points of attachment (three: para, meta, ortho), one having ordinary skill in the art would have immediately envisaged the structures taught by Herr with any of the three possible attachments, including para- as in instant formula DP4.]
Considering that both Flanagan and Herr disclose reversible adducts formed by reaction of polycarbonates including anthracene moieties as dienes and bismaleimides as dienophiles, and further given that the suitable bismaleimides named by Flanagan and Herr include several of the same compounds, one having ordinary skill in the art could have predictably substituted a bismaleimide adduct former named by Flanagan for another bismaleimide adduct former named by Herr, with a reasonable expectation that any of the named bismaleimide adduct formers would effectively react with anthracene moieties in Flanagan’s polycarbonate in order to increase the molecular weight thereof. It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art, therefore, to have reacted an anthracene-containing polycarbonate P1 with a bismaleimide adduct former, as suggested by Flanagan, by substituting the phenylene- or diphenylmethane- bismaleimide compound named by Flanagan for another bismaleimide adduct former known in the art, including a bismaleimide adduct former having a structure according to instant DP4, as taught by Herr. Case law has established that it is prima facie obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). MPEP 2143, rationale (B).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 11-13, 16, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flanagan et al (US 2020/0032060) in view of Hyodo et al (US 2012/0232240).
This is a rejection of resin formed by a Diels-Alder reaction between:
an aromatic polycarbonate as conjugated diene which is formed from BisZ and BIPANT, as in instant PC-5, and
a compound having two or more maleimide (i.e., dienophile) groups,
wherein the reaction of maleimide group(s) in the compound with anthracene group(s) in the polycarbonate forms bonds between polymer chains.
This embodiment is a resin encompassed by instant claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 11-13, 16, 17 and 19.
Flanagan teaches polymer adducts endowed with improved or additional properties with respect to those of the starting polymers [0002]. Flanagan further teaches that the formation of adducts represents a convenient way of obtaining high molecular weight polymeric structures from polymers of lower molecular weight, without rearrangement and randomization of polymer repeat units [0058]. Additionally, the adduct formation is reversible, and can be exploited for recycling, and to provide coatings that can be easily repaired by self-healing [0057].
For the formation of polymer adducts, Flanagan discloses a blend comprising an aromatic polymer (P1) which can be a polycarbonate (PC), and which comprises at least one moiety M1, which has the following structure:
PNG
media_image4.png
138
246
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[0050-52]. The at least one moiety M1 can be at one or both ends of the polymer chain, and/or can be a pendant group, and/or can be included in the polymer chain [0060-65]. Flanagan teaches that a polycarbonate can be formed by the addition of anthracene moieties having two or more functional groups capable of participating in the polymerization reaction, such that the anthracene moiety becomes incorporated into the polymer chain [0079]. A polycarbonate formed from polymerization of a polyfunctional anthracene moiety to provide anthracene moieties incorporated in the polymer chain, as disclosed by Flanagan, is an aromatic polycarbonate having two or more conjugated diene structures (anthracene structures) in the main chain of the polymer chain, as recited in claims 2 and 6. Additionally, the three possible M1 locations within a polymer chain disclosed by Flanagan in [0062-65] are separated by “and/or,” which means that M1 can be located at all three of the disclosed locations, or, located at only one of the disclosed locations. Therefore, one would have clearly envisaged embodiments wherein the moiety M1 is included in a polymer chain as taught in [0065], but not at both ends of the polymer chain as taught in [0063], meeting the recitations of instant claim 5.
Flanagan teaches four preferred aromatic diols for forming a polycarbonate, including 1,1-bis-(4-hydroxyphenyl)cyclohexane [0223] (i.e., “BisZ”). Flanagan further teaches that the amount of (M1)/anthracene units in the polymer can range from 0.1 to 100 mol%, e.g., 0.5 to 25 mol% [0067]. While Flanagan polycarbonate formed from BisZ and further discloses addition of anthracene moieties having two or more functional groups capable of participating in the polymerization reaction [0079], Flanagan fails to teach a polycarbonate having units derived from BisZ and from anthracene monomers in the main chain having a structure according to instant DE5 (recited in claim 12) or instant DE15 (recited in claim 13).
Hyodo teaches that bisphenol compounds having at least two aromatic rings have been used for producing various types of novel polymers, including polycarbonate resins, by means of reactivity of a hydroxyl group bound to the aromatic ring in the molecule. Hyodo teaches that resins derived from bisphenol compounds are employed in a variety of intended usages, and have a versatility that allows for a large variety of developments of applications [0008, 0060]. Hyodo teaches an anthracene derivative having characteristics peculiar to anthracene, and reaction diversity that results from the bisphenol structure [0017]. Hyodo discloses an anthracene derivative having the following formula I [0018]:
PNG
media_image6.png
157
172
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein X and Y are preferred to be hydroxyphenyl groups [0021] (Hyodo exemplifies 9-(4-hydroxybenzyl)-10-(4-hydroxyphenyl)anthracene, which has a structure wherein X and Y are 4-hydroxyphenylene groups; Example 1 [0110]). The functional groups enable use as a basic material for synthesizing various resins [0022], and introduction into the polymer main chain is permitted [0050]. Hyodo also teaches that placement of the phenol skeletons at positions 9 and 10 (short axis) of the anthracene skeleton achieves high carbon density or gives high crystallinity when introduced into the polymer chain [0050].
Considering Hyodo’s disclosure, when introducing anthracene units in the main chain of a polycarbonate resin, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize an anthracene compound such as 9-(4-hydroxybenzyl)-10-(4-hydroxyphenyl)anthracene in order to effectively introduce an anthracene structure into the main chain via the versatile reactivity of bisphenol groups. It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art, therefore, to have formed a polycarbonate polymer P1 by polymerization of BisZ, and by adding anthracene monomers having functionality capable of participating in the polymerization reaction, as disclosed by Flanagan, by utilizing Hyodo’s 9-(4-hydroxybenzyl)-10-(4-hydroxyphenyl)anthracene as the anthracene monomer, thereby arriving at a polycarbonate P1 having a structure which includes anthracene groups according to instant DE15 recited in claim 13 (and according to broader structures DE5 and DE1 in claims 11 and 12) and BisZ units according to formula UN1 recited in claim 19 (and which has a structure according to instant species PC-5).
Flanagan teaches that the blend can comprise a polymer P2 having maleimide end groups [0080]. Alternatively, Flanagan teaches including bismaleimides as thermal adduct formers [0232]. Flanagan exemplifies both types of embodiments: See Example 7, wherein chain extension of a polymer P1 is achieved by reaction (heating) of anthracene in P1 with maleimide-terminated polymer P2 [0297] (note that Flanagan characterizes the adduct formation as being “Diels-Alder” [0299]). See also Example 8, wherein chain extension of a polymer P1 is achieved by reaction (heating) of anthracene in P1 with 4,4’-bismaleimido-diphenylmethane as a thermal adduct former [0300].
Considering Flanagan’s disclosure regarding the advantages associated with the disclosed adduct formation, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select any appropriate structure for the maleimide-containing adduct forming component (i.e., a polymer P2 or a thermal adduct former such as 4,4’-bismaleimido-diphenylmethane), in order to provide a final product (article, coating, etc.) having appropriate properties according to the requirements of a given application. It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art, therefore, to have formed an adduct by reaction of anthracene groups in the polycarbonate P1 with maleimide, as disclosed by Flanagan, by selecting any appropriate maleimide structure disclosed by Flanagan in [0232], including e.g., 4,4’-bismaleimido-diphenylmethane (as exemplified in [0300]), which is a difunctional dienophile compound (as recited in claim 2) having a structure according to DP1 and DP2 recited in claims 16 and 17 (wherein X2 is a linking group containing covalently bonded carbon atoms). The fact that Flanagan discloses several types of polymer P1 and several types of maleimides to form an adduct with P1 does not render any particular combination of P1 or maleimide less obvious. A reference is available for all that it teaches to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories, Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 11-13 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flanagan et al (US 2020/0032060) in view of Hyodo et al (US 2012/0232240) and Herr et al (US 2012/0082840).
This is a rejection of the elected species, i.e., a resin formed by a Diels-Alder reaction between:
an aromatic polycarbonate as conjugated diene which is formed from BisZ and BIPANT, as in instant PC-5, and
a compound having two or more maleimide (i.e., dienophile) groups according to instant MI-BisA.
The elected species is encompassed by instant claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 11-13 and 16-19.
The rejection over Flanagan in view of Hyodo above is incorporated here by reference.
Modified Flanagan suggests a resin formed by reaction of aromatic polycarbonate according to instant PC-5 with a bismaleimide, as set forth above. As discussed previously, Flanagan teaches including bismaleimides as thermal adduct formers [0232], and exemplifies chain extension of a polymer P1 by reaction (heating) of anthracene in P1 with 4,4’-bismaleimido-diphenylmethane as a thermal adduct former [0300]. Flanagan further names other bismaleimides in [0232] (1,2-, 1,3-, and 1,4-phenylene dimaleimides). However, Flanagan fails to name a bismaleimide which has a structure according to instant MI-BisA.
Herr discloses a non-linear polymer network formed from a multifunctional diene monomer or prepolymer and a multifunctional dienophile monomer or prepolymer [0007]. Herr discloses that the multifunctional diene has a general structure L-(X)P where “L” can be polycarbonate, X is a diene (including anthracene) and P is greater than zero. The multifunctional dienophile has a structure L-(Y)Q wherein Y is a dienophile group and Q is greater than zero [0008, 0018]. Herr discloses aromatic bismaleimide resins as suitable dienophiles, which have structures according to the general formula L-(Y)Q wherein Y is maleimide and Q is 2 [0025].
Herr teaches that suitable aromatic bismaleimide resins are particularly those having a structure
PNG
media_image3.png
135
178
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein Q is aromatic [0025]. Herr teaches several “Q” structures on p 5. The second and third “Q” structures shown in [0025] correspond to the same bismaleimides taught by Flanagan (i.e., phenylene dimaleimides and bismaleimido-diphenylmethane). Herr further teaches a bismaleimide wherein Q is:
PNG
media_image7.png
78
371
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In view of the limited possible points of attachment (three: para, meta, ortho), one having ordinary skill in the art would have immediately envisaged the structure taught by Herr with any of the three possible attachments, including para- as in instant MI-BisA.
Considering that both Flanagan and Herr disclose reversible adducts formed by reaction of polycarbonates including anthracene moieties as dienes and bismaleimides as dienophiles, and further given that the suitable bismaleimides named by Flanagan and Herr include several of the same compounds, one having ordinary skill in the art could have predictably substituted a bismaleimide adduct former named by Flanagan for another bismaleimide adduct former named by Herr, with a reasonable expectation that any of the named bismaleimide adduct formers would effectively react with anthracene moieties in Flanagan’s polycarbonate in order to increase the molecular weight thereof. It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art, therefore, to have reacted an anthracene-containing polycarbonate P1 with a bismaleimide adduct former, as suggested by Flanagan, by substituting the phenylene- or diphenylmethane- bismaleimide compound named by Flanagan for another bismaleimide adduct former known in the art, including a bismaleimide adduct former having a structure according to instant MI-BisA, as taught by Herr. Case law has established that it is prima facie obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). MPEP 2143, rationale (B).
Conclusion
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