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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/13/2026 has been entered.
The previous prior art rejection under Uno et al (WO 2019188265) in view of Auman et al (US 20200140615) and over Uno in view of Auman and further in view of Komatsu et al (JP 2019059959) are maintained.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-11 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uno
et al (WO 2019188265, cited in IDS, cited herein with identical US 20210024699, cited in IDS) in view of Auman et al (US 20200140615), both cited in previous Office Action.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uno in view of Auman
as applied to claims 1, 3-8, 10-11 and 15-16 above, and further in view of Komatsu et al (JP 2019059959, cited in IDS, cited wherein with identical US 20220112209), cited in previous Office Action.
Amendment to claim 1 is noted.
Auman teaches a polyimide comprising wherein the mole percent of pyromellitic dianhydride (PMDA) is between 55% and 75%, the mole ratio of 3,3′,4,4′-biphenyltetracarboxylic dianhydride (BPDA) is between 15% and 25%, and the mole ratio of 4,4′-(hexafluoroisopropylidene) diphthalic anhydride (6FDA) is between 15% and 22% (see 0150 and Table 2, Entries PF-1 -PF-8 at 0290).
Auman discloses that the polyimides above possess very low Coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) and Yellow Index, high Glass Transition Temperature, Modulus and Transparency (see 0320-0334).
Note that instant claim 1 requires at least three dianhydrides and do not prohibit the use of 6FDA dianhydride in the polyimide structure.
The rejection can be found in the FINAL office action mailed 5/15/2026 and is herein incorporated by reference
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that according to Uno’s disclosure, high content of PDMA compromises a film transparency.
Examiner disagrees. Auman discloses that the polyimides above possess very low Coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) and Yellow Index, high Glass Transition Temperature, Modulus and Transparency (see 0320-0334).
Applicant submits that Uno’s and Asuman’s references are not combinable, because the secondary reference relies on 6FDA for transparency improvement, does not teach a polyimide with high PMDA content in Examples and cannot keep Uno’s polymer properties balance.
Examiner disagrees. Firstly, PMDA, BPDA, 6FDA represent most commonly used tetracarboxylic acid dianhydrides in polyamide production and the influence of each component on the final polymer properties is well documented. Thus, an artisan is aware that the major polyimide characteristics can be changed (i.e., modulus, CTE, transparency, etc.) by varying their ratio.
Applicant argues that unexpected results are demonstrated in Specification. In particular, Comparative Examples 1 and 2, which have low PDMA content have low CTE values and transmittance.
However, such phenomena (i.e., influence of rigid PDMA content on the polyimide properties) is well known. For instance, high PDMA content leads to low CTE, high modulus and diminished transparency, while increased BPDA ratio accounts for higher film flexibility. All desired parameters above can be achieved in a course of routine experimentation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY LISTVOYB whose telephone number is (571)272-6105. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm EST M-F.
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, Heidi Riviere Kelley can be reached at (571) 270-1831. 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.
GL
/GREGORY LISTVOYB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights