DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for (a) preparing a reaction system comprising poly(amic acid) and the at least one other compound, and (c) calculating a temperature ramp rate for a microwave power level and time (shown in figs. 1), does not reasonably provide enablement for the following:
1) Exposing the reaction system to microwave radiation according to the calculated temperature ramp rate
2) The microwave absorptivity of solvents is determined by their dielectric properties (claim 7)
3) The embedded carbon nanotubes are used as a cure sensor (claim 17) or in-situ structural health monitoring (claim 18).
The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. All Wands factors were considered for this scope of enablement rejection. The breadth of the claims is a method of curing a polyimide, polyimide copolymer, polyimide composite or combinations thereof. The method requires preparing a reaction system, determining the overall microwave absorptivity of the reaction system, calculating a temperature ramp rate for a microwave power level and time using the combined overall microwave absorptivity and exposing the reaction system to microwave radiation according to the calculated temperature ramp rate to produce a cured product. The specification does not teach how to calculate what time and power level settings (or which settings must be changed) for a given system according to the temperature ramp rate. Published paragraph 41 teaches the absorptivity calculations include solvents to prepare the polymer solution, fillers, and substrates. However, there is no disclosure to teach a person having ordinary skill in the art to actually calculate the combined overall microwave absorptivity of the reaction system to result in a temperature ramp rate, and then calculate the microwave settings to expose the system to “according to the calculated temperature ramp rate”. In the prior art, and the level of one of ordinary skill would recognize a method of measuring the temperature of a sample when exposed to microwave radiation, as seen from Figs. 1A and 1B in the specification. These graphs show time vs. temperature at various power levels. However, they do not show how to calculate the microwave power and time settings using the combined overall microwave absorptivity and the calculated temperature ramp rate, as is required by the claim, since the settings do not appear to be calculated in the instant specification. There are no working examples of determining the combined overall microwave absorptivity or the microwave settings of the reaction system, there is no direction provided by the inventors to perform this determination, and a person having ordinary skill in the art would need to experiment to make and use the invention.
Further, it is not disclosed how one of ordinary skill in the art would use the calculated temperature ramp rate to determine what microwave radiation should be used to cure the system. The power level of the microwave is tested in figs. 1A and 1B, but the examples do not disclose what time and power level are ultimately selected for a given system, and it is not disclosed how a person having ordinary skill in the art would choose the microwave radiation parameters “according to the calculated temperature ramp rate”. Published paragraph 41 states that the optimal ramp rate reaches the desired curing temperature in the shortest time, that lower initial power settings result in better microwave absorptivity, and to attain imidization or curing at a favorable temperature as fast as possible without damaging the macrostructure caused by abrupt solvent evaporation. However, there are no working examples that show what power level, time, and presumably power level change to select for a given system. A person having ordinary skill in the art would not know what microwave variables to select for a given system based on the temperature ramp rate charts of figs. 1A and 1B, and no guidance is given on what variables to change due to data on the temperature rate chart. These parameters from paragraph 41 are not used in any calculation of the desired microwave settings and a person having ordinary skill in the art would have to experiment for each system to optimize the curing settings.
The specification also does not discuss how to determine the microwave absorptivity of the solvents by their dielectric properties. Published paragraph 42 states that the larger the loss tangent, the more microwave energy is converted into heat, hence the faster the temperature ramp rate as a result. However, no calculations are shown that would convert loss tangent or any other dielectric property of the solvent into the microwave absorptivity, and it is not disclosed how to determine microwave absorptivity of any part of the system in the specification.
The specification does not show how the carbon nanotubes are used as a cure sensor or how the structural health is monitored using the embedded carbon nanotubes. The specification in published paragraphs 54 and 55 state that figs. 12A, 12B, 13A, and 13B show these features. However, it is not disclosed how to interpret these charts, how the carbon nanotubes are used as cure sensors, or how to monitor the health of the structure.
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 1-18 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.
A claim should be one sentence in length. Therefore, the periods after “a”, “b”, “c”, and “d” should be removed since it is indefinite if the claim is one sentence in length. It is suggested to show reference characters enclosed in paratheses, such as (a), (b), (c), and (d).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeMeuse et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,453,161) in view of Zhamu et al. (US 2020/0002505).
Regarding claims 1, 8-13, and 16-18: DeMeuse et al. teaches a method of curing a polyimide (abstract) by preparing a reaction system comprising polyamic acid (abstract), determining the absorptivity of the reaction system (fig. 3), calculating the temperature ramp rate for the power level (col. 8, experimental procedure), and then exposing the reaction system to microwave radiation to produce a cured product (col. 8 lines 55-60).
DeMeuse et al. does not disclose the system comprising at least one of copolymers, solvents, fillers or nanofillers. However, Zhamu et al. teaches a similar polyimide film (abstract) comprising fillers such as carbonaceous nanofillers like nanographene sheets (para. 57) or carbon nanotubes (para. 87), which overlaps with single walled carbon nanotubes, or aniline modified filler (para. 73). The claimed carbon nanotubes would function in the same way in the composite of the prior art as in the instant application, namely they would act as a cure sensor and an in-situ structural health monitor. DeMeuse et al. and Zhamu et al. are analogous art since they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely microwave cured polyimides. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add the filler of Zhamu et al. to the composition of DeMeuse et al. and would have been motivated to do so in order to color the film black.
Regarding claims 2-4: DeMeuse et al. teaches a microwave exposure time of 1-60 minutes (col. 7 lines 10-15), which overlaps the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 5: DeMeuse et al. teaches curing below 200 °C (col. 7 lines 40-45).
Regarding claim 6: DeMeuse et al. teaches the microwave heating experiments are done with a substrate (col. 8 lines 40-45).
Regarding claim 7: DeMeuse et al. does not teach the use of solvent. Since the combination of references teaches a different alternative to solvent, namely fillers, the calculation of the microwave absorptivity of the solvent is optional.
Regarding claims 14 and 15: DeMeuse et al. teaches the basic claimed method as set forth above. Not disclosed is the solvent. However, Zhamu et al. teaches N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone and dimethylformamide (para. 88). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the solvent of Zhamu et al. in the composition of DeMeuse et al. and would have been motivated to do so to mix the filler into the polymer matrix.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. These references are directed to microwave curing of polyimides or making polyimide composites with filler.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Megan McCulley whose telephone number is (571)270-3292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/MEGAN MCCULLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767