DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
All outstanding rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment filed on 8/8/2025.
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 new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 8/8/2025. In particular, claims 1 and 3 have been amended to exclude DMAc, and claims 13-20 are new. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yun (US 2020/0095376).
With respect to claims 1, 2, and 13-17, Yun discloses polymerizing polyimide for use in a polyimide-based film having excellent transparency (paragraph 0053) from a polyimide precursor and amide-based organic solvent (abstract). Example 1 is prepared by polymerizing DMPA (dimethylpropionamide (paragraph 0100), 2,2’-bis(trifluoromethyl)-4,4’-biphenyl and pyromellitic dianhydride (paragraph 0106). While Yun does not explicitly disclose the claimed conditions (1) to (4), the exemplified polymerization solvent DMPA inherently meets the claimed properties given that Applicant has disclosed in the specification as originally filed that DMPA meets claimed conditions (1) to (4) (page 27, Table 2). Therefore, the step in the claimed method of “selecting” a polymerization solvent having conditions (1) to (4) is inherently met by an example in Yun using DMPA.
With respect to claims 3, 4, 6, and 18-20, Yun discloses polymerizing polyimide for use in a polyimide-based film having excellent transparency (paragraph 0053) from a polyimide precursor and amide-based organic solvent (abstract). Example 1 is prepared by polymerizing DMPA (dimethylpropionamide (paragraph 0100), 2,2’-bis(trifluoromethyl)-4,4’-biphenyl diamine (aromatic diamine) and pyromellitic dianhydride (paragraph 0106). While Yun does not explicitly disclose the claimed conditions (1) to (4), the exemplified polymerization solvent DMPA inherently meets the claimed properties given that Applicant has disclosed in the specification as originally filed that DMPA meets claimed conditions (1) to (4) (page 27, Table 2).
With respect to claim 7, 2,2’-bis(trifluoromethyl)-4,4’-biphenyl diamine is the same as 2,2-bis(trifluoromethyl)benzidine.
With respect to claim 9, Yan does not disclose aromatic diacid dichlorides. Even so, this claim further limits an alternative structural unit does not exclude the alternative embodiment of aromatic diamine or dianhydride. Since the latter embodiments are disclosed by Yan as discussed above, it is proper to include this claim in this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-9 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 10,370,496) in view of Yun (US 2020/0095376).
With respect to claims 1, 2, and 13-17 Park discloses a polyamic acid composition for making a polyamideimide film thereof (abstract) having excellent light transmittance (col. 18, lines 53-58). Park teaches that the solvent is not particularly limits and includes dimethylacetamide (DMAc) (col. 5, lines 44-52). For example, Park’s Example 1 is a composition comprising DMAc as polymerization solvent and polymerizable units 2,2’-bis(trifluoromethyl)benzidine (aromatic diamine), 4,4’-hexafluoroisopropylidene diphthalic anhydride (aromatic dianhydride) cyclobutene tetracarboxylic dianhydride (aliphatic dianhydride), and isophthaloyl dichloride (aromatic diacid dichloride) (col. 10, lines 28-44).
Park discloses that polar solvents are preferred such as exemplified DMAc but fails to disclose a solvent meeting claimed conditions (1) to (4).
Yun discloses polymerizing polyimide for use in a polyimide-based film having excellent transparency (paragraph 0053) from a polyimide precursor and amide-based organic solvent (abstract). Yun teaches that the amide-based organic solvent such as dimethylpropionamide (DMPA) alleviates the interaction between polyamic acid (polyimide precursor) and polymerization solvent to reduce viscosity of the polyimide precursor solution allowing for a high solids content (paragraph 0039). Example 1 is prepared by polymerizing dimethylpropionamide (DMPA) (paragraph 0100), 2,2’-bis(trifluoromethyl)-4,4’-biphenyl (TFMB) and pyromellitic dianhydride (paragraph 0106, Table 2). Comparative Example 1 is like Example 1 except that the solvent is DMAc and has a polyimide precursor solution viscosity that is twice as much as Example 1 (Table 1). While Yun does not explicitly disclose the claimed conditions (1) to (4), the exemplified polymerization solvent DMPA inherently meets the claimed properties given that Applicant has disclosed in the specification as originally filed that DMPA meets claimed conditions (1) to (4) (page 27, Table 2).
Given that both Park and Yun are drawn to solutions containing polyamic acids and further given that Yun teaches that DMPA is advantageously used as the solvent compared to DMAc taught exemplified by Park, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select DMPA as the solvent in polyamic acid polymerizable solutions of Park and thereby necessarily also “select” a polymerization solvent having claimed conditions (1) to (4).
With respect to claims 3-9 and 18-20, Park discloses a polyamic acid composition for making a polyamideimide film thereof (abstract) having excellent light transmittance (col. 18, lines 53-58). Park teaches that the solvent is not particularly limits and includes dimethylacetamide (DMAc) (col. 5, lines 44-52). For example, Park’s Example 1 is a composition comprising DMAc as polymerization solvent and polymerizable units 2,2’-bis(trifluoromethyl)benzidine (aromatic diamine), 4,4’-hexafluoroisopropylidene diphthalic anhydride (aromatic dianhydride) cyclobutene tetracarboxylic dianhydride (aliphatic dianhydride), and isophthaloyl dichloride (aromatic diacid dichloride) (col. 10, lines 28-44).
Park discloses that polar solvents are preferred such as exemplified DMAc but fails to disclose a solvent meeting claimed conditions (1) to (4).
Yun discloses polymerizing polyimide for use in a polyimide-based film having excellent transparency (paragraph 0053) from a polyimide precursor and amide-based organic solvent (abstract). Yun teaches that the amide-based organic solvent such as dimethylpropionamide (DMPA) alleviates the interaction between polyamic acid (polyimide precursor) and polymerization solvent to reduce viscosity of the polyimide precursor solution allowing for a high solids content (paragraph 0039). Example 1 is prepared by polymerizing dimethylpropionamide (DMPA) (paragraph 0100), 2,2’-bis(trifluoromethyl)-4,4’-biphenyl (TFMB) and pyromellitic dianhydride (paragraph 0106, Table 2). Comparative Example 1 is like Example 1 except that the solvent is DMAc and has a polyimide precursor solution viscosity that is twice as much as Example 1 (Table 1). While Yun does not explicitly disclose the claimed conditions (1) to (4), the exemplified polymerization solvent DMPA inherently meets the claimed properties given that Applicant has disclosed in the specification as originally filed that DMPA meets claimed conditions (1) to (4) (page 27, Table 2).
Given that both Park and Yun are drawn to solutions containing polyamic acids and further given that Yun teaches that DMPA is advantageously used as the solvent compared to DMAc taught exemplified by Park, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select DMPA as the solvent in polyamic acid polymerizable solutions of Park.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth above.
Conclusion
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 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 VICKEY NERANGIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2701. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST, Monday - Friday.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571)272-1130. 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.
/VICKEY NERANGIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
vn
Prosecution Insights