DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the arguments RCE August 26, 2026.
Any bolded text is new language to the previous office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-5, and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YUBA et al (11,333,976) in view of TADOKORO et al (2018/0107114) and WENG et al (2017/0052445 A1)
The claimed invention now recites the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
654
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
884
694
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
160
668
media_image3.png
Greyscale
YUBA et al (US Patent to the Patent Application Publication) report a photosensitive resin composition comprising a polyimide resin (col. 17, lines 49-65) a photopolymerizable monomer (col, 31, lines 21-44) and a photoinitiator. (col. 31, lines 45-67) wherein the developers are reported in col. 46, lines 4-15 shown here:
PNG
media_image4.png
190
384
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The combination of a polyimide resin composition in YUBA et al with any of the highlighted organic solvents would result in the claimed RED between the developer and the film before exposure where same or similar components are disclosed in the specification.
Applicants are directed to (col. 26, line 39-48) teaching a polymerizable functional group at its ends meeting claim 6, see below:
PNG
media_image5.png
164
372
media_image5.png
Greyscale
YUBA et al (US Patent to the Patent Application Publication) discloses a working example comprising a 4,4’-diaminodiphenyl ether as a diamine precursor, see col. 63, lines 46 and Examples 56 and 57 from Table 2 in column 71/72, see below:
PNG
media_image6.png
80
814
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
40
404
media_image7.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the second compound listed for group A in amended claim 1.
TADOKORO et al report photosensitive composition for electronic parts comprising a polyimide-type resin having ethylenically unsaturated side groups and end groups, see para. [009] and para. [0012] below:
PNG
media_image8.png
256
380
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
220
390
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The unsaturated groups added to the polyimide-type resin would bond at the side groups and on the terminal group, meeting the scope of claim 6.
The molecular weight of the resin falls within the claimed range of claim 8, see para. [0121] below:
PNG
media_image10.png
322
432
media_image10.png
Greyscale
The method steps are found in claim 9 of YUBA et al for the coating, drying, exposing and developing steps.
Claims 1-5 are reported above for the polyimide resin.
Claim 7 is met in YUBA et al which uses PMDA, disclosed in col. 63, line 35.
PNG
media_image11.png
240
390
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
374
390
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 is met above for the Mw in para. [0121] of TADOKORO et al.
Claim 9 is met at para. [0272] for ultraviolet and excimer laser exposure of TADOKORO et al and col 45, lines 23-28 of YUBA et al.
Claim 10 is met by the disclosure above for the photopolymerizable components in the composition of YUBA et al, see above top of page 4 of OA.
Claims 11-12 are met by the disclosure in para. [0213] for the polyfunctional monomers, shown here from TADOKORO et al:
PNG
media_image13.png
430
370
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Claim 13 is met by col. 34, line 15-45 in YUBA et al for teaching the use of adhesion promoters.
With respect to the amendment claiming specific diamine precursors, applicants are directed to
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of photosensitive composition having polyimide resin with unsaturated ends to develop the composition of YUBA et al with organic developers as reported above with the
reasonable expectation of same or similar results for small linear thermal expansion and high absorption of i-line light.
The rejection is repeated wherein the RED interpreted results below are pulled from a search in Google for the definition of RED:
“RED < 1.0: The two materials will dissolve or are highly compatible (a "good" solvent).
RED = 1.0: Partial solubility; the material is sitting right on the boundary of the solubility sphere.
RED > 1.0: The materials are incompatible and will not dissolve well (a "poor" solvent). “
WENG et al is cited to verify the conventional RED property known in the art wherein a value of RED<1, means the solvent could dissolve the polymer, when RED =1, the solvent is expect to dissolve in the material partially and if RED>1, the solvent is not expected to dissolve the material, see para. [0032] below:
PNG
media_image14.png
600
362
media_image14.png
Greyscale
The claimed range as recited in claim 1 is 0.50 or greater to less than 1.4 meaning that the two materials are in a range of highly compatible to incompatible and will not dissolve well (a “poor” solvent).
The polyimide end-capped resin of YUBA et al disclose a specific resin made from cyclohexane tetracarboxylic dianhydride and a diamine which is end-capped with aminophenol, see any of Synthesis Examples 7-9 in Table 1 and other such as Synthesis Examples 11-18, 20, 22, 23, 33-35, 37-44, 46, 48,49, 59-61, 62-70, 72, 74, 75.
YUBA et al further disclose that the developers can be mixtures of good solvents and poor solvents for the resin such as N-methyl pyrrolidone (NMP), cyclopentanone, cyclohexanone and others. This disclosure inherently teach that the developers are good solvents for the resin composition meaning the RED would be in a range of RED <1.0 to RED =1 as the developer necessarily must dissolve the resin composition in the either treated or untreated areas (exposed/unexposed areas), see page 24, para. [0136]
The rejection is repeated wherein the resin compositions of YUBA et al would possess the claimed RED (relative energy difference) recited in claim 1 based on the disclosure in. col. 46, lines 6-15.
Claim 14 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.
None of the prior art references of record disclose the diamine of Formula (I-c) condensed with a dianhydride to form a polyimide.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S. CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-1329. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, IFP-Flex.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/John S. Chu/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
J. Chu
September 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights