DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14 and 16-20 are pending as amended on 2/17/2026. Claims 3-5, 11, 13, 14 and 16-20 stand withdrawn from consideration.
Claim 1 has been amended to include limitations which were previously recited in claims 6 and 7, and to recite a molar ratio of first to second repeat units which was not previously recited. The rejection over Choi has been modified to address the amendments to claim 1. Because the modification to the rejection was necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, this action is properly made final.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (WO 2020/159085; the corresponding US equivalent to Choi et al, US 2021/0222007 cited herein).
As to claims 1, 2, 7 and 8, Choi discloses a polyamide resin film which blocks ultraviolet wavelengths to protect material inside electronic equipment, while exhibiting adequate mechanical properties and excellent transparency [0028]. Choi exemplifies films of polyamide formed from the same monomers as utilized in the instant examples (TFDB as diamine, TPC and IPC as dicarbonyl compounds) [0162-0165]. A polyamide film formed from Choi’s exemplified monomers meets the recitation that the polymer comprises two types of an amide repeat unit (one type formed from TFDB and TPC, and one type formed from TFDB and IPC). TPC (terephthaloyl chloride) meets the “first dicarbonyl compound” recited in claim 7 in view of the para orientation of the carbonyl groups, while IPC (isophthaloyl chloride) meets the “second dicarbonyl compound” recited in claim 7 in view of the meta orientation of the carbonyl groups.
Choi further teaches that the content of first repeating units (preferably formed from TFDB and TPC [0065,68]) in the polyamide resin is 40-95 mol% in order to ensure a sufficient level of molecular weight and excellent mechanical properties. Choi teaches preferred ranges of first repeating unit content which corresponding to molar ratio ranges within the presently claimed molar ratio range of 10:90 to 90:10 (e.g., 50 to 90 mol%, 60 to 85 mol%, etc…) [0072-3].
Choi teaches a haze of 0.85% or less [0104], which falls within the range of 1% or less recited in claim 8, a transmittance of 86-90% at a 45-55 micron film thickness [0050], which falls within the range of 80% or more recited in claim 8, and a yellowness index of 3.1 or less at a 45-55 micron film thickness [0049], which falls within the range of 3.5 or less recited in claim 8.
Choi fails to teach XRD properties, as recited in claims 1 and 2, or a modulus of 5 GPa or more, as recited in claim 8.
Choi teaches that the polyamide resin has a first polyamide segment which is an amide repeating unit derived from a combination of 1,4-aromatic diacyl compound and aromatic diamine compound; due to the linear structure, the chain packing and alignment can be kept constant in the polymer, and the surface hardness and mechanical properties of the polyamide resin film can be improved [0066]. The preferred first segment has a structure formed from TPC and TFDB, see [0068] and [0065]. Choi teaches that the molecular weight of the first segment is 100-5000 g/mol (which can be confirmed by X-ray scattering), and that if excessively long, crystallinity is increased and the polyamide may have high haze and low transparency [0069]. Choi further teaches that the content of first repeating units in the polyamide resin is 40-95 mol% in order to ensure a sufficient level of molecular weight and excellent mechanical properties [0073].
Choi teaches positioning a second segment between first segments to minimize the length of the first segment, reduce crystallinity, lower haze and achieve excellent transparency [0029-32]. The second segment is preferably formed from IPC and TFDB, as disclosed in [0079] and shown in [0080]. Due to its curved molecular structure, the second repeating unit interferes with chain packing, increases the amorphous region in the polyamide, and improves optical properties and folding endurance [0084]. The second repeating unit suppresses the growth of the chains of first repeating unit, which lowers crystallinity and gives low haze and excellent transparency [0086].
As evidenced by the discussion in the instant specification, and as would have been appreciated by one having ordinary skill in the art, XRD analysis (data in the form of an X-ray diffraction plot) provides an indication of the size of crystalline components and uniformity of the spacing between lattice planes of crystalline components within a material (see pp 4-5 of the instant specification). Specifically, the width of an XRD peak changes as crystal size changes (as crystallinity increases, peak width decreases), the 2ϴ (two theta) position of an XRD peak depends on the spacing between the lattice planes of crystals, and the intensity of an XRD peak at a given two theta position corresponds to the amount of crystals with a given spacing.
Considering that Choi suggests (and exemplifies) films of polyamide wherein the first and second segments are formed from the same monomers as utilized in the instant examples (TFDB as diamine, TPC as the dicarbonyl in first segment, and IPC as the dicarbonyl in the second segment) [0162-0165], there is reasonable basis to conclude that Choi’s polyamide films and the polyamide films of the instant examples have substantially similar spacings between lattice planes of first and second crystalline components. Therefore, Choi suggests polyamide films from TFDB, TPC and IPC having first and second peaks in an XRD plot in substantially the same two theta positions as the presently claimed and exemplified films formed from TFDB, TPC and IPC.
Additionally, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, Choi teaches that varying the length of the first segment and varying the content of the first segment relative to second segment affects chain packing and the content of crystalline and amorphous regions. There is reasonable basis to conclude, therefore, that changing the length and content of the first segment (formed from TFDB and TPC) in Choi’s polyamide (within the ranges disclosed by Choi) must be associated with changes to the size and content of crystalline components within a polyamide film formed therefrom (thereby resulting in changes to the widths of XRD peaks).
Considering Choi’s teachings discussed in the preceding paragraphs which establish the length and content of first segment within the polyamide as being result effective variables, when preparing a polyamide resin comprising linear first segments (formed from TFDB and TPC) and curved second segments (formed from TFDB and IPC), the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select any appropriate length and content of first segments and any appropriate content of second segments in order to achieve a desired degree/content of resin crystallinity (by increasing the length and/or content of first segments for applications wherein improved surface hardness and mechanical properties are of higher priority, or by decreasing the length of first segment and/or content of first segment for applications wherein low haze and transparency are of higher priority). It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art, therefore, to have prepared a polyamide having first segments formed from TFDB and TPC and second segments formed from TFDB and IPC, as disclosed by Choi, having any appropriate length and content of first segments as taught by Choi, in order to achieve the desired degree of crystallinity (and the associated balance between improved haze/transparency versus surface hardness/mechanical properties), including a first segment length/content corresponding to a degree/content of crystallinity associated with:
a first XRD peak having a full width at half maximum (FWHM) within a range of 6 degrees or less as presently recited in claim 1,
A percentage of a second peak having an FWHM within a range of 40% or less relative to the total of the first peak’s FWHM and second peak’s FWHM, as recited in claim 2, and
A modulus within a range of 5 GPa or more, as recited in claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues (p 12) that instant example 3 and comparative example 1 have similar final compositions (same molar ratio of TPC:IPC), yet due to differences in addition sequence of TPC and IPC to TFDB, the FWHM of the first XRD peak of example 3 is 5.8° (within the claimed range of 6° or less), while the FWHM of the first XRD peak of comparative example 1 is 6.2° (outside the claimed range of 6 degrees or less). Applicant argues that Choi cannot be regarded as inherently disclosing the technical features of claim 1.
However, the rejection of record does not assert that the properties recited in claim 1 are necessarily inherent to every polyamide disclosed by Choi. Rather, the rejection of record finds that:
one would have recognized the length of Choi’s first segment and the content of the first segment relative to second segment as being result effective variables (in view of Choi’s teaching that varying the length and content of first segment affects chain packing and the content of crystalline and amorphous regions),
that one would have been motivated to optimize these variables within ranges disclosed by Choi in order to achieve a desired degree/content of resin crystallinity (by increasing the length and/or content of first segments in order to improve surface hardness and mechanical properties when appropriate, or, by decreasing the length of first segment and/or content of first segment in order to decrease haze and increase transparency when appropriate),
and that therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have prepared a polyamide having first segments formed from TFDB and TPC and second segments formed from TFDB and IPC, as disclosed by Choi, having any appropriate length and content of first segments within Choi’s disclosed ranges in order to achieve the desired degree of crystallinity (and the associated balance in properties), including a first segment length/content corresponding to a degree/content of crystallinity associated with the presently claimed XRD properties.
Applicant’s argument does not address the specific findings made in the rejection of record, and, Applicant has not provided any reasoning or explanation which establishes that Choi does not suggest selecting a length and content of first and second segments which correspond to a crystallinity associated with the presently recited FWHM of 6° or less. Therefore, Applicant’s argument fails to overcome the prima facie case of obviousness over Choi.
Additionally: Applicant characterizes instant comparative example 1 as having a FWHM of the first XRD peak which is outside the claimed range of “6° or less.” However, the FWHM of Comparative example 1 is 6.2°. When rounded to the same number of significant figures as in the claimed range, the FWHM of Comparative example 1 is 6°, which falls within the claimed range of 6° or less. Because the FWHM of the first XRD peak of the instant comparative examples are considered within the range of 6° or less recited in claim 1, the polyamides of the instant comparative examples are encompassed by instant claim 1. Therefore, the properties of the polyamides formed from TPC, IPC and TFDB in the instant examples and comparative examples support the position that a polyamide formed from TPC, IPC and TFDB suggested by Choi is at least encompassed by instant claim 1.
Applicant argues (pp 12-13) that Choi does not recognize or suggest controlling XRD peak properties within the claimed range and achieving desired effects. However, while Choi does not provide XRD data, Choi emphasizes controlling crystallinity to achieve desired effects (as set forth in the rejection of record). As also explained in the rejection of record, XRD analysis (data in the form of an X-ray diffraction plot) provides an indication of the size of crystalline components and uniformity of the spacing between lattice planes of crystalline components within a material (see pp 4-5 of the instant specification). The fact that Choi does not analyze crystallinity utilizing XRD as recited in the present claim is not sufficient to establish that Choi does not suggest a polyamide having crystallinity properties which would, if analyzed by XRD, be associated with the presently recited XRD peak properties. A polyamide suggested by the prior art cannot become patentable merely by testing and claiming a property which is not reported in the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the modified 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 RACHEL KAHN whose telephone number is (571)270-7346. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8-5.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. 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.
/RACHEL KAHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766