DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment dated 13 July 2026 is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1, 4, 9-16, 18, 19, and 21-25 as amended are pending.
All outstanding objections and rejections made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.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, 4, 9, 12, 14-16, 18, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2005-298625 A (“Ishizuka”).
JP 2005-298625 A is in applicant’s IDS dated 30 December 2025. A partial machine translation is enclosed with this action.
As to claims 1, 4, 9, and 21-24, Ishizuka teaches a polyimide compound. Ishizuka teaches forming polyimides having the general formula
PNG
media_image1.png
126
374
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(para. 0012). This polyimide is formed from the fluorene containing tetracarboxylic dianhydrides, including by way of example, formulas A-1, A-5, A-6, and A-9 (para. 0023) which when formed into polyimide would provide a group having T1 of Formula (6) where each GT is -S-, -(CO)-NRGT-, or =NRGT-CO)-, O(CO)O-, where RGT is H, and T2 is a group of Formula (3b), and q is 0, as required by claims 1, 22, and 24.
While not exemplified, Ishizuka teaches forming the polyimide by reacting the fluorene containing dianhydride with diamines, including aliphatic diamines, including bis(4-aminocyclohexyl)methane, 1,4-diaminocyclohexane, ethylenediamine, 2,2-dimethylpropylenediamine, which are understood to provide groups Ra that are aliphatic moieties of 2 to 100 carbon atoms as required by claim 1, aliphatic moiety of 5 to 60 carbon atoms as required by claim 4, and aliphatic moiety of 10 to 40 carbon atoms as required by claim 9.
Ishizuka does not discuss a value of n for the polymer. However, Ishizuka teaches a preferable molecular weight of 1000 to 500000 (para. 0046). Examiner estimates, given the weight of the aforementioned monomers, this would provide polymers having approximately 10 to 500 units, which encompasses the recited range of claims 1 and 21. This amount is selected to provide mechanical properties while maintaining workable viscosity (para. 0046), and therefore modifying the chain length within the recited range is an obvious modification suggested by Ishizuka.
While not exemplified with the repeating unit, Ishizuka teaches reacting with monofunctional dicarboxylic anhydride to prevent discoloration, specifically with reactive carbon carbon unsaturated bond to improve strength, specifically maleic anhydride (para. 0030), which would be expected to provide the maleimide end groups shown in Formula (4) where R1 and R2 are hydrogen as required by claims 1 and 23.
As to claims 12 and 15, Ishizuka teaches a solution of the polyimide that is cast on a substrate and formed to a film (para. 0052), thus curing. The polymer, being the same, is presumed to be dielectric polymer material (para. 0005, 0046, 0049).
As to claim 14, while not exemplified with the recited compound, Ishizuka teaches the use of inorganic fillers in formulation with the resin (para. 0054), and thus such modification is an obvious modification suggested by Ishizuka.
As to claim 16, Ishizuka teaches forming the polyimide into a dielectric polymer material (para. 0046, 0049).
As to claim 18, Ishizuka teaches using the polymer for electronic devices (para. 0002, 0063).
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2005-298625 A (“Ishizuka”) as applied to claim 18, further in view of US 2020/0185346 (“Venkatadri”).
As to claim 19, Ishizuka teaches the use of the resin for passivation films of semiconductors (para. 0063). Ishizuka does not teach the specific purpose, but Ishizuka teaches the utility of insulating materials used as repassivation layers on semiconductor chip packages (microelectronic device), including polyimide (paras. 0017, 0019). As such, the use of the polyimide of Ishizuka for such an end use is an obvious end use suggested by Venkatadri.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 11, 13, and 25 are 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: the prior art, including Ishizuka, does not reasonably teach or suggest the compound, having the recited polyimide structure with the recited Ra groups of claims 10 or 11, or the specific embodiments set forth in claim 25. Ishizuka teaches curing formulation of the polymer, but does not have sufficient rationale to incorporate additional reactive compounds as required by claim 13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4, 9-16, 18, 19, and 21-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new 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 KREGG T BROOKS whose telephone number is (313)446-4888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9 am to 5:30 pm.
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, Arrie Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/KREGG T BROOKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights