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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 7-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/19/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsutani JP 2006028271 as evidenced by Does Temperature Affect Dissolving? Lesson Plan (retrieved from: https://www.acs.org/middleschoolchemistry/lessonplans/chapter5/lesson6.html retrieved on 7/22/2026).
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 6, Matsutani teaches a thermal ring closing resin comprising a polybenzimidazole precursor (Abstract). Matsutani teaches the polybenzimidazole precursor is dissolved in an organic solvent such as dimethylacetamide (Page 9).
Matsutani is silent on the size of the polybenzimidazole precursor. However, Matsutani does teach the polyimide precursor is filtered through a 3 micron filter (Page 11). This overlaps with the claimed range of 300 microns or less. It would have been obvious for the polybenzimidazole precursor to have the same size as the polyimide precursor because the polyimide precursor is listed as an equally suitable alternative to the polybenzimidazole precursor and the size is deemed suitable for similar compositions in the same application. This represents the use of a suitable precursor particle size in a similar application. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-21 (2007). See MPEP 2141.
Matsutani is silent on the pressure of the polybenzimidazole precursor when dissolved in the solvent. Without information on the pressure condition of the environment, it would have been obvious for the pressure to be atmospheric. Atmospheric pressure is 0.1013 MPa. This overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 MPa to 0.2 MPa.
Regarding claim 3, Matsutani teaches the reaction temperature occurs at 300C or less. Some amount of dissolution would occur at the reaction temperature as increased temperatures increases the solubility of the solute. The range of 300 or less overlaps with the claimed range of 140-200C (Page 1). Therefore, Matsutani reads on the limitations of claim 3.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsutani JP 2006028271 in view of Oishi 20200291181.
Regarding claim 5, Matsutani is silent on the percentage of precursor to solvent.
Matsutani teaches the precursor is cyclized (Abstract). Matsutani teaches that the resulting polybenzimidazole is used as in electronics applications (Title).
Oishi teaches a polybenzimidazole precursor (Paragraph [0025]). Oishi also teaches the polybenzimidazole precursor is dissolved in a solvent such as dimethyl acetamide (Paragraph [0125]). This reads on the claimed dimethyl acetamide solvent. Oishi teaches the polybenzimidazole precursor is cyclized (Paragraph [0024]). Oishi teaches the resulting composition is used in electronic applications (Abstract).
Oishi also teaches the precursor is dissolved at a concentration of 20% (Paragraph [0170]). This overlaps with the claimed range of 8-20%. It would have been obvious for the precursor of Matsutani to be dissolved in this ratio because this represents the use of a suitable concentration of precursor to solvent in a similar application. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-21 (2007). See MPEP 2141.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 is 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.
Regarding claim 2, Matsutani does not teach the composition has a size of 200-300 microns.
Wang US 20060033226 teaches a polybenzimidazole precursor (Abstract). Wang teaches the powder is the size of 1 μm to 300 μm (Paragraph [0060]). This overlaps with the claimed range of 200-300 microns. However, Wang does not teach the polybenzimidazole precursor is dissolved in a solvent. Therefore, Wang does not teach on the limitations of claim 1 or 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILY K SLOAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30 ET.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
/LILY K SLOAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights