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 § 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.
Claims 1-6, 9-11, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP-2012/140568 to Takeshi et al. (Cited on IDS, machine translation provided).
As to claims 1-6, Takeshi discloses a polyimide comprising 0.95 moles of 2,2-bis[4-)4-aminophenoxy]propane 4,4’ODA (BAPP)), 0.5 moles of Jeffamine D400 (polyetheramine), and 1 mol of 3,3,4,4-diphenyltetracarboxylic dianhydride (BPDA) (0101-0102).
As to claims 9-11, Takeshi discloses the addition of solvent to the polyamic acid to prepare a solution, wherein suitable solvents include N-methylpyrrolidone (0101) and the solids content of the solution is 25.0% by weight (0101).
As to claim 14, Takeshi discloses films prepared from the polyimide composition (0100).
As to claim 15, Takeshi discloses wherein the polyimide film is obtained by applying the composition onto a copper foil, drying at 130°C for 10 minutes and curing at 360°C for 2 hours (0105).
As to claim 16, Takeshi does not teach or fairly suggest the elastic recovery rate and tensile strength of the prepared film. However, Takeshi discloses polyimide prepared from aliphatic and aromatic diamine components with the preferred tetracarboxylic dianhyride using the same methods of heating and curing. When the composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties or function are presumed inherent. MPEP 2112.01. Because the prior art exemplifies Applicant’s claimed composition in that the claimed components are present in the claimed amounts, the claimed physical properties relating to the compositions recovery rate are inherently present in the prior art. Absent an objective showing to the contrary, the addition of the claimed physical properties to the claim language fails to provide patentable distinction over the prior art.
As to claim 17, Takeshi discloses a polyimide film with a lamination copper foil adhesive strength of 7 N/cm or more (0094, 707 gf/cm).
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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2012/140568 to Takeshi et al. (Cited on IDS, machine translation provided).
As to claims 7-8, Takeshi discloses a polyimide comprising 0.95 moles of 2,2-bis[4-)4-aminophenoxy]propane 4,4’ODA (BAPP)), 0.5 moles of Jeffamine D400 (polyetheramine), and 1 mol of 3,3,4,4-diphenyltetracarboxylic dianhydride (BPDA) (0101-0102).
Takeshi discloses a mol ratio of aromatic diamine to aliphatic diamine of preferably 90/10 or more (0032).
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to increase the content of polyetheramine including those within the claimed range to maintain adhesion strength and to avoid a decrease in heat resistance as taught in Takeshi (0032).
As to claim 8, Takeshi discloses polyetheramines with molecular weights that overlap the claimed ranges (see values of x+y+z between 2 and 20, 0017).
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to increase the molecular weight of the polyetheramine used in the examples because higher molecular weight components are taught as replacements for Jeffamine D400 with the expectation that said substitution would ensure good adhesive under relaxed thermal bonding conditions and excellent heat resistance (0013).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2024/0182765 to Okazaki et al. with support provided by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0068211 to Kanakarajan
As to claims 12-13, Okazaki discloses a process for preparing a polyimide composition comprising adding to a solvent (NMP), two acid anhydrides and two diamines at 40°C to prepare solution having a solids content of 20 to 25%, followed by the subjecting the solution to temperature increases from 50 to 200°C to cause imidization (0109-0110, 0168-0170).
The specific order of operation is not disclosed by Okazaki. However, Kanakarajan discloses methods of prepared polyimides wherein the reactants can be added in order to a solution prior to imidization (0041-0050). Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness over the order of addition. Therefore, when faced with methods of preforming the imidization one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to prepare an aromatic diamine solution first followed by introducing dianhydride and aliphatic diamine to the solution to insure proper mixing and dissolving of reactants prior to imidization. This is further supported by the methods discussed in Kanakarajan. Case law holds that "[h]aving established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely... on a conclusion of obviousness, 'from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art within any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.'" In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL L LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)270-7450. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 7:00-4:00.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at 571-272-1130. 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.
/MICHAEL L LEONARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights