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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/07/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-17 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker et al. [“Para-linked aromatic poly(amic ethyl esters) precursors to rodlike aromatic polyimides”, Mater. Dep., Univ. California, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106, USA. Macromolecules (1992), 25 (25), 6784-90].
In the entire article, Becker et al. teach a composition comprising a precursor polyamides para-linked aromatic poly(amic Et esters) prepd. from 2,5-bis (ethoxycarbonyl) terephthaloyl chloride and several substituted 1,4-diaminobenzene and noncoplanar 4,4'-diaminobiphenylene derivatives., in solvents such as DMF or N-methylpyrrolidinone (NMP), wherein the precursor polyamides are consistent with the Formulas 1-3, exemplified by the structure below:
PNG
media_image1.png
272
217
media_image1.png
Greyscale
attached to the Ar group, which is akin to the present Y groups.
Becker et al. exemplifies the Ar groups with groups including:
PNG
media_image2.png
78
106
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
86
232
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
While Becker et al. do not explicitly exemplify a precursor comprising a combination of the three different Ar groups in the precursor, the different Ar groups are taught as equivalent alternatives. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to use one or any combination of the Ar groups in preparing the precursor polyamides.
Suitable Ar for the preparing the precursors are taught by Becker et al. to include:
PNG
media_image2.png
78
106
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
86
232
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a combination of the Ar groups in the precursor polyamides, since each member of the combination is known individually as a functional Ar group and a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have expected such a combination to work in an additive or cumulative manner, In re Kerkhoven, 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA 1980).
It is noted that applicant’s claim to the combination of the formulas 1-3 is so broad as to not include any ratio or the percentages of the groups. It is unclear what effect and infinitesimal amount of two of the alternatives would have on almost 100% of one when used in combination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in light of the new grounds of rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELECHI CHIDI EGWIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-7.
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.
/KELECHI C EGWIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
KCE
