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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In the following formulas:
PNG
media_image1.png
100
444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
120
466
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ar radical has only 3 links, while general polyimide formula of claim 1 requires 4 links:
PNG
media_image3.png
128
448
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction is required.
Note that for examination purposes it is assumed that Aryls have 4 links in all formulas.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katano et al (US 20150275089), cited in IDS, in view of Asanuma et al (Synthesis of Thermotropic Liquid Crystal Polyimide and Its Properties, Journal of Polymer Science: Part A Polymer Chemistry, Vol. 32, pages 2111-2118 (1994)).
Katano teaches a liquid crystal alignment film used for a liquid crystal display device formed from polyimide obtained by a reaction of tetracarboxylic dianhydride and diamine (see 0087), where dianhydride can be represented by the following formula (22) (see 0096, meeting the corresponding limitations of claims 1, 4-6 and 9-10):
PNG
media_image4.png
216
494
media_image4.png
Greyscale
note that regarding the corresponding limitations of claims 1, 4-5 and 9-10, R and Z are equal to H;
and diamine can be represented by the following formula (see 0163):
PNG
media_image5.png
96
458
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The diamine above comprises the same elements as the claimed diamine W (see claim 1). However, claimed diamine has 2 C(CH3)2 groups and 5 Aryls, while Katano’s formula teaches only 1 C(CH3)2 group and 4 Aryls.
The claimed diamine is disclosed by Asanuma.
Asanuma teaches a thermotropic liquid crystal polyimide of the following formula (see Table 11. Properties of Polyimides of BACB at page 2113):
PNG
media_image6.png
120
594
media_image6.png
Greyscale
where R is represented by Pyromellitic dianhydride (PMDA), 3,3’,4, 4’Biphenyl tetracarboxylic dianhydride (BPDA), ,3,3 ‘,4,4 Benzophenone tetracarboxylic dianhydride (BTDA) and 3,3’,4,4’-oxydiphthalic anhydride(ODA), (see Table II at page 2113).
Asanuma further teaches that a synthesis of the polymer above takes place at the presence of 0.1 mol of phthalic anhydride (see page 2112, left column). Such approach for molecular weight regulation by terminating a growing polymer chain with phthalic anhydride is well known. In fact, Katano uses the same approach, using monofunctional compounds as molecular weight regulators (see 0197-0198).
Asanuma teaches that use of such monomer as 1,3-bis [ 4- (4‘-aminophenoxy) cumyl) ]benzene (BACB) decreases melt viscosity of the polyimide (see Abstract). It is clear that addition of such terminating agent as phthalic anhydride decreases molecular weight and effectively serves the same purpose.
It is well known that comparatively low melt viscosity improves processability of the plastic and decreases energy cost.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to use such terminal agent as phthalic anhydride and replace DI-7-7 diamine to BACB in order to improve processability of Katano’s polyimide simultaneously decreasing energy cost of the entire process.
Regarding limitations of claims 1-3 and 7-8, which recited a number of repeating units, Katano teaches weight average polyimide molecular weight (Mw) within the range of 10000 to 50000 (see 0207). According to Carothers formula, theoretical molecular weight distribution (MWD) of the polymer obtained by a polycondensation method is equal 2.0. Consequently, theoretical number average molecular weight (Mn) of modified Katano’s polyimide is within the range of 5000-25000. Considering that molecular weight of PAN-2- BACB unit has Mn of about 870 (i.e., 520+350), the calculated number of repeating units in the modified Katano’s macromolecule is within the range of around 6 to around 29 (i.e., 5000/870 to 25000/870).
Conclusion
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