DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the application received May 4, 2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7, 10-12, 14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SMITH et al (6,151,042) or NARANG et al (5,849,809).
The claimed invention recites the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
498
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
456
660
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
216
658
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
260
656
media_image4.png
Greyscale
SMITH et al report a photosensitive resin composition comprising a polyimide resin having aromatic rings with end groups as seen in col. 158, line 40-65 wherein the end groups include an ethynyl and a vinyl group, see below:
PNG
media_image5.png
724
528
media_image5.png
Greyscale
These end groups meet the claimed ethynyl end groups as recited in claims 1, 12, and 18.
The composition is deposited on a substrate, exposed, heated and developed to form ink channels in a printing head, see col. 107, line 29 to col. 108, line 7.
With respect to claim 18, SMITH et al disclose a second component as a reactive diluent (crosslinker), which is capable of inducing polymerization or crosslinking, see col. 102, lines 41-67.
NARANG et al (5,849,809) disclose a composition comprising a polymer containing a monomer repeat units with photosensitive substituents for crosslinking or chain extension. Applicants are directed to col. 70, lines 60-67 wherein the polyarylene ether ketone are reacted with an isocyanatoethyl methacrylate to form unsaturated ends groups meeting claim 1, 12 and 18 for the first two ends group recited in claims.
This composition is disclosed to be used in photoresists and/or forming inkjet printheads by coating, exposing, heating and developing, see col. 67, line 45 – col. 68, line 31.
With respect to claim 18, NARANG et al likewise disclose a second component as a reactive diluent (crosslinker), which is capable of inducing polymerization or crosslinking, see col. 62, lines 41- 67 to improve the film forming characteristics.
Claims 2-5 are rejected wherein the specific end groups are listed as potential groups in the alternative which may or may not be addressed by the art.
Claim 6 and 7 are rejected as seen in SMITH et al above for the ethynyl end groups.
Claim 10 is met by the polymer above in SMITH et al wherein a second monomer is disclosed as functional group as taught in claim 10.
Claim 11 is met by the col. 109, lines 24-31 wherein the composition is coated over an electrode.
Claim 12 is met by the disclosed photoresist layer in SMITH et al wherein it is conventional to coat an anti-reflective layer over a substrate provided with an overcoated photoresist to improve pattern formation.
Claim 14 disclose the use of more than one of the polymers in NARANG et al., see col. 61, line 50-61.
Claim 16 and 17 are met by the disclose printhead which have gaps and raised patterns for the ink path and the photoresist pattern structures formed.
Claim 18 has been addressed above.
Claim 19 is met by the disclosed molecular weight of the polymers to be 3,000 to 20,000 Daltons, preferably 3,500 to 6,500 Daltons see col. 34, lines 42-48.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of photosensitive composition to add a reactive diluent to the composition as a second crosslinking compound to induce crosslinking with the reasonable expectation of improving the pattern image.
Claims 8 and 9, 13, 15, and 20 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.
None of the prior art references of record disclose the claimed limitations in the aforementioned dependent claims for the backbone resin as listed in claim 8, the repeat units of claim 9, the units of claim 13, and claim 15, and the oligomer in claim 20.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
REIS et al discloses the reaction mechanism of glycidyl methacrylate at the hydroxyl and carboxylic group by either the transesterification route or the epoxy ring-opening route.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-1329. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, IFP-Flex.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Huff, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1385. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/John S. Chu/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
J. Chu
December 28, 2025