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 § 102
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujii et al. (US 2015/0183931).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 7:
Fujii discloses a polyamic acid and a polyimide made from a diamine and a tetracarboxylic dianhydride [abstract; 0001; 0039]. The dianhydride comprises a fluorene skeleton (i.e., cardo group-containing) [0013; 0015; 0023; 0033; 0100]. Fujii discloses additional dianhydrides, such as BPDA, which is devoid of a cardo group [0022; 0032; 0100].
Fujii teaches the relative ratio of BPDA-containing units (General Formula 1) to fluorene-containing units (General Formula 2) is 80/20 or lower [0026]. Example 1 discloses a polymer formed from CHDA, BPDA, and BPAF (cardo group-containing dianhydride), wherein the BPAF comprises 20 mol% of the dianhydrides [0100-0102].
Regarding claim 3:
Fujii teaches the use of substantially equal amounts of diamine and dianhydride [0040].
Regarding claim 5:
Fujii teaches CHDA, which is devoid of a cardo group [0100].
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yun et al. (US 2019/0048141).
Regarding claims 1 and 7:
Yun US’141 discloses a polyimide precursor and a polyimide made from a diamine and a tetracarboxylic dianhydride [abstract; 0002; 0012-0020]. The dianhydride comprises PMDA and a fluorene-based (i.e., cardo group-containing) monomer [0012-0020]. The fluorene-based dianhydride can be used in amounts of 10-40 mol%, preferably 10-25 mol% [0021; 0057]. Specific examples use 15 mol% and 20 mol% of BPFA (cardo group-containing dianhydride) [0116-0117].
Regarding claims 2 and 4:
As mentioned, Yun discloses PMDA, which is devoid of a cardo group.
Regarding claim 3:
Yun teaches the molar ratio of diamine to dianhydride is 0.99:1 to 1:0.99 [0058]. Examples use a ratio of 0.999 to 1.0 [0116-0117].
Regarding claim 5-6:
Yun teaches diamines according to its Chemical Formula 3, which overlaps in scope with present Chemical Formula 1, and further discloses specific examples, including TFMB [0014-0020; 0069; 0116-0117].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (US 2009/0088551).
Regarding claims 1 and 7:
Yamashita discloses a polyamic acid and a polyimide made from a diamine and a tetracarboxylic dianhydride, wherein the dianhydride comprises a fluorene-based (i.e., cardo group-containing) monomer having a structure according to a Chemical Formula I [abstract; 0001; 0010-0015]. The fluorene-based dianhydride makes up 10 mol% or more, or 15 mol% or more of the carboxylic acid element to provide a desirable low absorption property [0022].
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amount of the fluorene-based dianhydride, including in amounts presently claimed, to provide the desired low absorption property as taught by Yamashita.
Regarding claim 2:
Yamashita teaches additional dianhydrides comprise those devoid of a cardo group [0023; 0044-0048].
Regarding claim 3:
Yamashita teaches the use of equimolar amounts of diamine and dianhydride, as well as small amounts of excess of either component [0018-0019].
Regarding claim 4:
Yamashita discloses PMDA [0023; 0044].
Regarding claim 5:
Yamashita teaches diamines comprise those devoid of a cardo group [0024; 0044-0048].
Regarding claim 6:
Yamashita discloses diamines falling within the scope of present Chemical Formula 1, including but not limited to: 3,3′-dimethyl-4,4′-diaminobiphenyl, 3,4′-dimethyl-3′,4-diaminobiphenyl, 3,3′-dimethoxybenzidine, etc. [0024]. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any of the diamines disclosed as being suitable by Yamashita, including those encompassed by present Chemical Formula 1, to provide a polyimide in accordance with its invention, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2017/217635) in view of Yamashita et al. (US 2009/0088551), or Fujii et al. (US 2015/0183931), or Yun et al. (US 2019/0048141).
Regarding claims 8-9:
Kim discloses a flexible electrochromic device [abstract; 1; 6]. The device comprises a flexible substrate, a first transparent conductive layer, an ion storage layer, an electrolyte layer, an electrochromic layer, and a second flexible substrate [7-16]. Kim teaches the substrates comprise polyimide [10].
Kim is silent with regard to a polyimide composition as presently claimed.
Such polyimide compositions were known in the art to have utility. For example, Yamashita discloses a polyamic acid and a polyimide as explained in the rejections above, which are incorporated herein by reference. Yamashita teaches the polyimide has low water absorption [0002; 0009].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Yamashita’s polyimide with Kim’s invention in view of the polyimide’s low water absorption property.
Alternatively, Fujii discloses a polyamic acid and a polyimide as explained in the rejections above, which are incorporated herein by reference. Fujii teaches the polyimide has excellent heat resistance, low thermal expansion property, and transparency and shows low birefringence [0012]. The film is useful in flexible displays [0060].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Fujii’s polyimide with Kim’s invention in view of the polyimide’s disclosed beneficial properties.
Alternatively, Yun US ‘141 discloses a polyamic acid and a polyimide as explained in the rejections above, which are incorporated herein by reference. Yun US ‘141 teaches the polyimide has excellent transparency, heat resistance, mechanical strength and flexibility [0039]. The film is useful in flexible displays [0039; 0112-0113].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the polyimide of Yun US ‘141 with Kim’s invention in view of the polyimide’s disclosed beneficial properties.
Regarding claims 10-11:
Yamashita teaches the coefficient of thermal expansion of its polyimide is preferably 25 ppm/K or lower [0039].
Fujii teaches the coefficient of thermal expansion of its polyimide is preferably 40 ppm/K or lower [0053].
Yun US ‘141 teaches the coefficient of thermal expansion of its polyimide is preferably -7 to 20 ppm/K or lower [0109].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the coefficient of thermal expansion, including over values within the claimed range to provide the desired expansion characteristics required for a given end use. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 8-12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yun et al. (KR 2023-0065510) in view of Yamashita et al. (US 2009/0088551), or Fujii et al. (US 2015/0183931), or Yun et al. (US 2019/0048141).
Note: citations refer to the machine translation of KR ‘510 provided with this Office Action.
Regarding claims 8-9 and 12:
Yun KR ‘510 discloses a method of making a flexible smart window [abstract; 2; 4]. The method comprises forming a first polyimide layer on a first glass fabric and a second polyimide layer on a second glass fabric; forming a first conductive layer and an ion storage layer on one polyimide layer; forming a second conductive layer and a color changing (electrochromic) layer on the other; combining the two resulting stacks with an electrolyte layer in between; and detaching the first and second glass fabrics via a laser lift-off process [4; 20-24; 28-30; 44; 47].
Yun KR ‘510 is silent with regard to a polyimide composition as presently claimed.
Such polyimide compositions were known in the art to have utility. For example, Yamashita discloses a polyamic acid and a polyimide as explained in the rejection above. The rejections based on Yamashita are incorporated herein by reference. Yamashita teaches the polyimide has low water absorption [0002; 0009].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Yamashita’s polyimide with the invention of Yun KR ‘510 in view of the polyimide’s low water absorption property.
Alternatively, Fujii discloses a polyamic acid and a polyimide as explained in the rejection above. The rejections based on Fujii are incorporated herein by reference. Fujii teaches the polyimide has excellent heat resistance, low thermal expansion property, and transparency and shows low birefringence [0012]. The film is useful in flexible displays [0060].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Fujii’s polyimide with the invention of Yun KR ‘510 in view of the polyimide’s disclosed beneficial properties.
Alternatively, Yun US ‘141 discloses a polyamic acid and a polyimide as explained in the rejection above. The rejections based on Yun US ‘141 are incorporated herein by reference. Yun US ‘141 teaches the polyimide has excellent transparency, heat resistance, mechanical strength and flexibility [0039]. The film is useful in flexible displays [0039; 0112-0113].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the polyimide of Yun US ‘141 with the invention of Yun KR ‘510 in view of the polyimide’s disclosed beneficial properties.
Regarding claims 10-11:
Yamashita teaches the coefficient of thermal expansion of its polyimide is preferably 25 ppm/K or lower [0039].
Fujii teaches the coefficient of thermal expansion of its polyimide is preferably 40 ppm/K or lower [0053].
Yun US ‘141 teaches the coefficient of thermal expansion of its polyimide is preferably -7 to 20 ppm/K or lower [0109].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the coefficient of thermal expansion, including over values within the claimed range to provide the desired expansion characteristics required for a given end use. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 14:
Yun KR ‘510 discloses heat treating at 450°C or greater [31].
Regarding claim 15:
Yun KR ‘510 discloses two sacrificial layers [25-30].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Yun KR ‘510 discloses a method of making a flexible smart window comprising a laser lift-off process as explained above. The reference is silent with regard to the quantity of light energy per unit area as presently claimed. Nothing of record indicates it would have been obvious to modify the reference to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11-8PM EST.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/JOHN D FREEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787