DETAILED ACTION Summary Th is is a non-final office action for application 18/546,390 filed on 14 August 2023. The preliminary amendment filed on the same date is acknowledged. 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 § 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 -12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MATSUO (US-20180237638-A1) in view of OKA ( WO-2015080158-A1 ). The MATSUO (US-20180237638-A1) reference is in the IDS dated 12 October 2023. Regarding Claim 1 , MATS U O teaches a polyamic acid which can be preferably utilized for producing a polyimide film ([0007]). This satisfies the requirement of a polyimide precursor. MATSUO teaches that its polyamic acid solution comprises a polyamic acid and an organic solvent ([0048]) . MATSUO teaches many specific organic solvents ([0256]) and exemplifies dimethylacetamide in the example cited below ([0324]). MATSUO teaches that th e polyamic acid is formed by reacting a tetracarboxylic dianhydride of formula (1)([0047], [0009]): and an aromatic diamine of the form H2N-R5-NH2 ([0047], [0034]) where the R1’s are each independently hydrogen, C1-10 alkyl, hydroxyl, nitro, or multiple can be connected to form a methylidene group ([0009]), R2 and R3 are each independently hydrogen or C1-10 alkyl ([0010]) and R5 is an arylene group having 6-40 carbons ([0034]). MATSUO teaches that the resultant polyamic acid has the following formula (5) ([0034]): which satisfies the recited formula (1) where X1 has the tetravalent bi-norborn a ne scaffold recited in general formula (1-1), recited Y1 is R5 which is the C6-C40 arylene group and R1=R2=H. MATSUO teaches in Example 4, a polyamic acid containing the tetracarboxylic dianhydride of general formula (18) ([0324], Table 2, [0298]) and 4,4-diaminobenzanilide (DABAN)([0324]) and dimethylacetamide solvent ( [0324]) . The tetracarboxylic dianhydride of formula (18) is the structure of formula (1) with all hydrogen attachments and has a core which matches the structure of recited formula (1-1). MATSUO teaches that DABAN has the following structure (Table below [0273]): which when reacted with the tetracarboxylic dianhydride results either the recited (D-1) or (D-2) structures for Y1. Note that these are the same tetracarboxylic dianhydride and aromatic diamine used in the instant examples (cur spec: Table 1-1). MATSUO teaches in Example 4 only using these two components which results in 100% of the X1 satisfying formula (1-1) and 100% of the Y1 units satisfying formula (D-1) or (D-2) which satisfies the requirements that 70 mol% or more of X1 and Y1 satisfy those conditions. MATSUO does not teach an imidazole compound. OKA, in an invention of a polyimide precursor solution with the same general formula of a tetracarboxylic anhydride reacting with a diamine ([0015]) where the tetracarboxylic dianhydride may contain norbornane groups ([0135], Table 1-1) and the diamine may be DABAN ([0136], Table 1-2), teaches inclusion of an inclusion of an imidazole-based compound (Abstract) in amounts of 4 mol or less, preferably 0.05 mol to 2 mol or less with respect to 1 mol of the repeating unit of the polyimide precursor ([0021]) which is within the range of 0.01-2 mol per mol of repeating units recited by the claim . OKA discusses prior art where imidazole additives are used in polyimide precursor compositions to prevent discoloration improve transparency ([0009]) and as a curing accelerator for controlling the linear expansion coefficient ([0010]). OKA teaches that when imidazole is included within the 0.05-2 mol per mol of repeating unit range, polyimide films having a small retardation in the thickness direction can be obtained while maintaining high transparency, or even improving transparency ([0021]). OKA also teaches that inclusion of the imidazole within this range avoids deterioration of storage stability ([0094]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the invention of MATSUO with the teachings of OKA and include imidazole in its polyamic acid solution (polyimide precursor) in amounts of 0.05-2 mol per mol of repeating unit for the purpose of avoiding discoloration and improving properties such as transparency, storage stability and the linear expansion coefficient. Regarding Claim 2 , modified MATSUO teaches the invention of Claim 1 where OKA teaches the imidazole component. OKA teaches that examples of its imidazole-based component include 1,2-dimethylimidazole, 1-methylimidazole, 2-methylimidazole, 2-phenylimidazole, imidazole, and benzimidazole and that these compounds may be used along or in combination ([0093]). This matches the list of imidazoles recited by the claim. OKA exemplifies each of the above imidazoles (e.g. [0146], [0161], [0173], [0176], [0179], [0182]). Regarding Claim 3 , modified MATSUO teaches the invention of Claim 1 where MATSUO teaches only using the tetracarboxylic dianhydride of formula (18) above which results in 100% of X1 units represented by the recited formula (1-1) which satisfies the requirement that 90mol% or more of X1 has the recited structure. Regarding Claim 4 , modified MATSUO teaches the invention of Claim 1. MATSUO generally teaches the that the 5% weight loss weight loss temperature of polyimides of its invention are preferably 350°C or higher, more preferably 450-550°C. The more preferably range overlaps recited limitation that the 5% weight loss temperature is 515°C or higher. MATSUO teaches that higher weight loss temperatures provide heat resistance ([0183]). MATSUO does not report measure ments of the 5% weight loss temperature. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the examples of MATSUO, if needed, an create polyimide films with a 5% weight loss temperature that is within the range taught by MATSUO in its specification that is also within the range recited by the claim for the purpose of providing heat resistance. Regarding Claim 5 , modified MATSUO teaches the invention of Claim 1. MATSUO generally teaches polyimides formed from its invention have a linear expansion coefficient of 1-100 ppm/K, preferably 10-80 ppm/K ([0192]) which overlaps the requirement that the linear expansion coefficient is 20 ppm/K or less. MATSUO teaches that if the coefficient is too high, then the polyimide tends to be easily peeled off when a composite is formed with a metal or inorganic material having a linear expansion coefficient from 5-20 ppm/K while if the coefficient is too low, it reduces solubility ([0192]). MATSUO does not report measurements of the linear expansion coefficient, but it would be obvious to modify the examples of MATSUO and form polyimide films with a linear expansion coefficient that is within the range taught by MATSUO in its specification that is also within the range recited by the claim for the purpose of maintaining solubility and avoiding peeling. Regarding Claim 6 , modified MATSUO teaches the invention of Claim 1. MATSUO generally teaches that its composition preferably has a haze of less than 3 when measured on polyimide films of 5-20 µm ([0191]) which overlaps the requirement that the haze is less than 1.0%. MATSUO exemplifies in the Example 4 cited in the Claim 1 rejection a haze of 0.5 (Table 2). Regarding Claim 7 , modified MATSUO teaches the invention of Claim 1. MATSUO does not discuss storage stability. OKA teaches that when its imidazole additive is used within its preferred amounts that it avoids deterioration of storage stability ([0094]). OKA teaches that its exemplary compositions obtain excellent storage stability ([0249]), maintaining fluidity after 3 days when stored at 23°C. While the recited fluidity test is for 10 days instead of 3 days, one would inherently expect that the polyamic acid solution made obvious by MATSUO in view of OKA in the Claim 1 rejection would have a storage stability within the recited range because MATSUO teaches the same copolymer made from the same tetracarboxylic dianhydride and the same DABAN diamine as is used in the instant invention and OKA teaches the same imidazole additive used in the same amounts as is used in the instant invention. Regarding Claim 8 , modified MATSUO teaches the invention of Claim 1. MATSUO teaches producing a film from its polyamic acid solution ([0007] , [0268]). Regarding Claims 9-10 , modified MATSUO teaches the invention of Claim 1. MATSUO teaches a polyimide film formed from the polyamic acid solution on a glass substrate ([0303]). The film on a substrate satisfies Claim 9, the glass substrate satisfies Claim 10. Regarding Claims 11-12 , modified MATSUO teaches a method of preparing a polyimide film where the polyamic acid solution is spin-coated onto a large glass slide, heated first to 60°C and then to 350°C to form a polyimide-coated glass ([0303]) which satisfies steps (a) and (b) recited by Claim 11 . That the substrate is glass satisfies Claim 12 . Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MATSUO (US-20180237638-A1) in view of OKA (WO-2015080158-A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of NAKAYAMA (TW-202045592-A). The NAKAYAMA (TW-202045592-A) reference, with translation, is in the IDS dated 12 October 2023. Regarding Claims 13-14 , modified MATSUO teaches the invention of Claim 1 above. MATSUO teaches use of its polyimide films in the electronics and semiconductor applications ([0265]) , but MATSUO does not teach the recited process. OKA teaches a similar process where the precursor composition is cast onto a base material such as glass ([0112]) (recited step a) , heated and imidized ([0112]) (recited step b) , forming the conductive layer on the surface of the polyimide film [0115])(recited step c), and then peeling the polyimide film laminate to form a flexible conductive substrate made of a polyimide film laminate ([0115]), but it is not clear whether the peeling step is separating the original substrate from the polyimide film to satisfy the requirements of recited step d. To the extent that OKA does not teach the recited process, NAKAYAMA, in an invention of a polyamic solution and polyimide film (Title) with an imidazole additive ([0078]), teaches a batch process for manufacturing an electronic device where the resin solution is applied on a glass support ([0003])(recited step a), heating the polyamic acid solution together with the glass support ([0003])(recited step b), forming electronic elements such as transistors or transparent electrodes on the surface of the laminated glass support ([0002], [0003])(recited step c) and then peeling off the film from the glass support ([0003]) (recited step d). NAKAYAMA teaches that this produces a flexible device ([0021]). Here, the specification of the current invention is used as evidence that adding elements such as transistors are interpreted as satisfying the recited requirement of a “semiconductor layer” (cur spec: p. 8, line 3) . It would be obvious to further modify the invention of MATSUO and use its composition in the method recited by NAKAYAMA for the purpose of obtaining a flexible electronic device. The method satisfies Claim 13 . That the method taught by NAKAYAMA uses a glass support satisfies Claim 14 . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DAVID R FOSS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4821 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:00 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT ARRIE L REUTHER can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7026 . 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. /D.R.F./ Examiner, Art Unit 1764 /KREGG T BROOKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764