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 .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, line 1, filed 02 July 2026, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (Chinese Patent Publication no. CN 105694045 B), hereinafter Zheng, in view of Miyashita et al. (Japanese Patent Publication no. JP 2007-298841 A), hereinafter Miyashita, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended claim limitation of Claim 1 of the present application overcomes rejection in view of the prior art of record. While Examiner pointed toward Page 3, Line 38 to Page 4, Line 38 of Zheng teaching a content of the polythiol is 6 parts by mass or more and 12 parts by mass or less with respect to 100 parts by mass of the double-decker silsesquioxane, that does not mean that Zheng fails to teach a content of the polythiol being 30 parts by mass or more and 60 parts by mass or less with respect to 100 parts by mass of the double-decker silsesquioxane. Page 2, Lines 20-24 of Zheng teaches: “As a preferred technical solution of the present invention, in an air atmosphere, or under the protection of nitrogen and argon, one mole of a compound containing a mercapto functional group, . . . 0.9-1.1 moles of a divinyl double-clamp oligosilsesquioxane, or a mixture containing a divinyl double-clamp oligosilsesquioxane . . . are sequentially added to the reaction flask.” Furthermore, Page 3, Line 38 to Page 4, Line 38, see particularly Experimental Examples 6-8, of Zheng teaches the use of more than one compound containing a mercapto functional group in the same composition. Thus, at minimum, Zheng teaches 0.5 part polythiol, 0.5 part compound containing a mercapto functional group that is not polythiol, and 1 part double-decker silsesquioxane, thus 50 parts by mass polythiol with respect to 100 parts by mass of the double-decker silsesquioxane. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of record is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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:
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (Chinese Patent Publication no. CN 105694045 B), hereinafter Zheng, in view of Miyashita et al. (Japanese Patent Publication no. JP 2007-298841 A), hereinafter Miyashita.
5. Regarding Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10, Zheng teaches (Page 3, Line 38 to Page 4, Line 38) a double-decker silsesquioxane. Zheng teaches (Page 3, Line 38 to Page 4, Line 38) a polythiol. Zheng teaches (Page 2, Lines 20-24, AND Page 3, Line 38 to Page 4, Line 38) a content of the polythiol is 50 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the double-decker silsesquioxane (see above). Zheng teaches (Page 3, Line 38 to Page 4, Line 38) an organic solvent.
6. However, Zheng fails to explicitly teach the double-decker silsesquioxane having two or more polymerizable double bonds. Furthermore, Zheng fails to explicitly teach the double-decker silsesquioxane (A) having two or more polymerizable double bonds is a silsesquioxane represented by formula (1) of the present application. Furthermore, Zheng fails to explicitly teach the double-decker silsesquioxane (A) having two or more polymerizable double bonds is a silsesquioxane represented by formula (1a) of the present application. Furthermore, Zheng fails to explicitly teach a cured film obtained by curing the photosensitive composition.
7. Miyashita teaches (Paragraph [0041]) the double-decker silsesquioxane having two or more polymerizable double bonds. Miyashita teaches (Paragraph [0041]) the double-decker silsesquioxane having two or more polymerizable double bonds is a silsesquioxane represented by formula (1) of the present application. Miyashita teaches (Paragraph [0041]) the double-decker silsesquioxane having two or more polymerizable double bonds is a silsesquioxane represented by formula (1a) of the present application. Miyashita teaches (Paragraph [0039]) a cured film obtained by curing the photosensitive composition. Miyashita teaches (Paragraph [0007]) said limitations have the effect of good storage stability and allowing for microfabrication on the order of several microns.
8. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that Zheng in view of Miyashita teaches the double-decker silsesquioxane having two or more polymerizable double bonds; the double-decker silsesquioxane having two or more polymerizable double bonds is a silsesquioxane represented by formula (1) of the present application; the double-decker silsesquioxane having two or more polymerizable double bonds is a silsesquioxane represented by formula (1a) of the present application; and a cured film obtained by curing the photosensitive composition. Doing so would result in good storage stability and allow for microfabrication on the order of several microns, as recognized by Miyashita.
Conclusion
9. 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).
10. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to RICHARD D CHAMPION at telephone number (571) 272-0750. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Mon-Fri EST.
12. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KEITH D HENDRICKS can be reached at (571) 272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
13. 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).
14. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/R.D.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1737
