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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, as described in the previous Office Action, the Examiner stated that the inclusion of the limitations of claim 13 in claim 1 would sufficiently limit the scope of claim C such that component C is commensurate in the claim scope. The Examiner also noted that claim limitations of compounds (A) and (B) were still too broad at the time of the previous office action. While compound (C) is now commensurate in the claim scope, compounds (A) and (B) are not.
Compound A in the examples is taught as APDES, APTES, or M3TMSPA. However, compound A with the limitations of claim 1, still can include other small molecules comprising other atoms besides, N, O, C, H, and Si. (even where the limitation of claim 4 reads “alkyl” a substituted alkyl group still reads on the claimed “alkyl group”). Additionally, there is no limitation on the mw or length of the alkyl group of compound A. The examples teach a narrow selection for the compounds of claim 1 compound A, but compound A as described by claim 1 can still encompass many different types of compounds. The structures of the examples represent a very limited subsection of compounds that fall within this range and are not representative of all compounds which meet the parameters of (A).
The Applicant argues that the examples used for B in Table 1, ODPA, PMDA, and BPDA are representative samples of the amended claim 1. However, the (B) of amended claim 1 can comprise any heteroatoms as long as there exists one or two benzene rings and 3 -C(=C)OX groups. The compounds used in table 1 all comprise only carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen compounds. Therefore, the examples of (B) are not fully representative of the scope of claim B.
The Examiner acknowledges a further amendment of (B) and (A) which further limits the structures of (A) and (B) can be suitable in narrowing the claim scope.
The Examiner recommends a potential affidavit to demonstrate further compounds suitable as (A) and (B) which shows (A) and (B) are as broad as indicated by claim 1, and/or an amendment further narrowing the scope of claim 1 to reflect the scope of the examples (specifically acknowledging the limitations on the amount of atoms that are not N, O, C, H, and Si, and C, H, and O).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kayaba US 20180334588A1.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 5, Kayaba teaches a composition comprising a compound (A) aminopropyldiethoxymethylsilane which includes a Si-O bond and a cationic functional group containing at
least one of a primary nitrogen atom or a secondary nitrogen atom (Abstract). This reads on the claimed “A.”
Kayaba also teaches the composition comprises a component (B) which comprises a which includes three or more-C(==O)OX groups (X is a hydrogen atom or an alkyl group having from I to 6 carbon atoms) in the molecule, in which from one to six of three or more -C(= O)OX groups are -C(= O)OH groups, and which has a weight average molecular weight of from 200 to 600. This reads on the limitations of (B).
Kayaba also teaches the composition can comprise an additional amine having a ring structure (Paragraph [0114]). Kayaba also teaches the additional amine can be dimethyldiaminobiphenyl (Paragraph [0129]). It would have been obvious to select dimethyldiaminobiphenyl as the additional aromatic amine because it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
This reads on the limitations of claim 1 where the cyclic structure has two primary nitrogen atom bonded to the cyclic structure and where the cyclic structure is a biphenyl group. This amine has a molecular weight of 212.29 g/mol. This falls within the claimed weight range of 80-600.
Kayaba teaches in Example 26 a composition comprising an additional amine component para-xylenediamine (Paragraph [0318]), which is listed in parallel with the other aromatic amines. Kayaba does teach that the amount of xylenediamine in the composition is 5% by mass and the amount of APDES, or component (A) in the composition is 2% by mass. The molar mass of APDES is 191.34 g/mol. The molar mass of xylene diamine is 136.2 g/mol.
This corresponds to 12.4% percent of primary and secondary nitrogen in A with respect to the total amount of nitrogen in (A) and (C). This falls within the claimed range of 3-95 mol%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the amount of aromatic amine recognized in example 26 in this composition because example 26 represents a suitable amount of aromatic amine to add in the same composition and application. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-21 (2007). See MPEP 2141.
Regarding claim 4 and 12, Kayaba also teaches A is selected from a group comprising 3-aminopropyldiethoxymethylsilane, (Paragraph [0065]). This reads on the limitations of claims 4 and 12. It would have been obvious to select 3-aminopropyldiethoxymethylsilane as component A because it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 6, Kayaba also teaches the composition comprises a polar solvent (Paragraph [0101]).
Regarding claim 7, Kayaba teaches the composition can be used in a semiconductor device (Title). This reads on the claimed “semiconductor device.”
Regarding claim 8, Kayaba teaches that the composition can be applied to a substrate (Paragraph [0146]). This reads on the limitations of claim 8.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LILY K SLOAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30 ET.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
/LILY K SLOAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights