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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 10-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auman et al. US2020/0140615 A1.
Auman teaches polyamic acid solution derived from tetracarboxylic acid and diamine components to generate polyimide films for use in electronic display applications (abstract and para [0532]).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Auman discloses (reference claims 1-4) that the polyamic acid comprises three or more tetracarboxylic acid components and one or more diamine components. The tetracarboxylic acid components are derived from dianhydrides where two of the dianhydride can be selected to be 3,3',4,4'-biphenyltetracarboxylic dianhydride (BPDA) and 4,4'-(hexafluoroisopropylidene) diphthalic anhydride (6FDA). Further the diamines can be selected to be p-phenylenediamine (PPD) and 2,2'-bis(trifluoromethyl) benzidine (TFMB). Auman adds that a combination of solvents can be used to generate the polyamic acid solution, which can be selected to be N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP) and propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate (instant claim 4).
Auman highlights (para [0451]) that rod-like monomers such as BPDA and PPD form highly rod-like polyimide polymer chains orienting in the plane of the film giving low in-plane CTE property. While the fluorinated monomers like 6FDA and TFMB tend to give higher-transparency polyimides due to the electronic and steric effects of the fluorinated groups. Thus, guiding a skilled artisan towards the combination of the above monomers to generate the polyimide films with tailored properties of CTE and transparency.
Auman does not address the permittivity and the surface resistance properties of the polyimide films, however owing to the closeness of the materials disclosed, it would necessarily follow that the polyimides provided by Auman would possess the permittivity and surface resistance as defined by the claim. Therefore, the invention as claimed is fully within the purview of Auman and choosing the specific monomers and solvent combination corresponding to the claimed monomers and solvents would have been obvious with reasonable expectation of achieving adequate results.
Regarding claim 2, the boiling point of NMP solvent is 202 oC, and that of propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate is 146 oC, meeting the claimed requirement.
Regarding claims 3 and 5, instant specification (page 7, lines 1-2) provides propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate as an example of the second solvent, and thus the solubility requirement would be met. Since the polyamic acid has a lower solubility in the second solvent such as propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate, it would be obvious to utilize small amounts of the second solvent complying with the claimed requirements in order to prevent the precipitation of the polyamic acid.
Regarding claim 6, Auman’s anhydride monomer BPDA, as discussed when addressing claim 1, would behave in a similar fashion (as instant specification example 1, page 22), where the majority of the S-BPDA monomer participates to create polymerization units (with the diamine monomer), while a small portion of it, reacts with methanol to create a ring-opened structure which does not participate in the polymerization reaction.
Regarding claim 10, Auman teaches a solid content of 15-20 wt%, meeting the claimed requirement (para [0187]).
Regarding claim 11, Auman provides Example 1 with the viscosity of a polyamic acid solution of ~12000 cps which is measured at 25 oC (para [0714]). Obvious polyamic acid solution derived from monomers BPDA, 6FDA, PPD and TFMB in the solvent system of NMP and propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate, as discussed when addressing claim 1, attaining similar molecular weight and solid content level as that of Auman’s Example 1, would be reasonably expected to satisfy the viscosity requirement as defined by the claim.
Regarding claim 12, Auman teaches (para [0200]) the weight average molecular weight to be between 160,000 and 220,000, meeting the claimed requirement.
Regarding claim 13, Aumun teaches (para [0215]) incorporation of inorganic fillers in the polyamic acid solution, meeting the claimed requirement.
Regarding claim 14, Auman teaches (para [0028]) the in-plane coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the polyimide film to be less than 20 ppm/° C, meeting the claimed requirement.
Regarding claims 15 and 17, Auman teaches (paras [0024] and [0029]) the Tg of the cured polyimide film to be greater than 350 oC, meeting the claimed requirement.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auman as applied to claims 1-6, 10-15 and 17 above, and in view of Ashibe et al. US2020/0339754 A1.
Regarding claim 16, Auman provides (para [0713]) a preparation example of generating a polyamic acid which is conducted at a temperature close to 30 oC, which is lower than the required heating temperature. Auman adds that specification is not restrictive and various modifications and changes can be made by one of ordinary skill in the art (para [0733]). To optimize the reaction method of the polyamic acid creation, an artisan would look to analogous reference such as Ashibe who also teaches polyimide for display applications (title). Ashibe generates the polyamic acid at a reaction temperature of 60 oC (para [0254]). Advantageously, Ashibe provides the motivation to set the polyamic acid reaction temperature to 60 oC, to manage reaction time (para [0151]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Auman’s polyamic acid synthesis method with the temperature of 60 oC as taught by Ashibe for the same application of creating the polyamic acid in a smaller time interval.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 and 10-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 of claim 7 is withdrawn, since the claim has been cancelled.
In light of the amended claims the provisional non-statutory double patenting rejections over claims of copending Applications # 18/037,839, 18/037,862, 18/037,874 and 18/037,894 have been withdrawn.
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 Surbhi M Du whose telephone number is (571)272-9960. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 5:00pm.
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, Heidi (Riviere) Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/S.M.D./
Examiner
Art Unit 1765
/JOHN M COONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights