DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Per preliminary amendment dated 8/16/23, claims 1-15 are currently pending in the application. Election/Restriction REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art. The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e). When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions: As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories: (1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or (2) A product and a process of use of said product; or (3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or (4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or (5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process. Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c). Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372. This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted. Group 1 , claim 1-6 , drawn to a polyamic acid polymer; Group 1I , claim 7, 8 , drawn to a polyimide; Group 1II , claim 9 , drawn to a composition; Group 1V , claim 10 , drawn to a photosensitive composition ; Group V , claim 11-13 , drawn to a pattern forming method ; Group VI , claim 14 , drawn to a n article ; and Group VII , claim s 1 5 , drawn to a printed board . The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: Groups I to VII above lack unity of invention because the technical feature common to the cited groups is a polyamic acid obtained by polymerizing an aromatic carboxylic acid component (AC) and a diamine compound of formula (I). Regarding this feature, the prior art to Mueller et al. (US 5,055,550, cited in the IDS) teaches a polyamic acid formed from 2,2’-bis(4-aminophenyl)hexafluoropropane and 4,4’-bis[2-(3,4-dicarboxyphenyl)hexafluoroisopropyl)diphenyl ether dianhydride (reads on an aromatic carboxylic acid component (AC)) (Example 2 ). Additionally, disclosed examples of suitable diamines in the general disclosure include 2,2’-bis(4-aminophenyl)hexafluoropro pan e , 1,3-bis(4-aminophenyl)hexafluoropropane, 1,5-bis(4-aminophenyl)decafluoropentane (the latter two read on formula (I)) and mixtures thereof (col. 3-6). Although Mueller is silent on a polyamic acid form ed from the claimed diamine in a single embodiment, given the teaching on suitable diamines including those of formula (I), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form a polyamic acid within the scope of the claimed invention. In response to a request for an oral election by telephone ( 3/10/26 ), Ms. Joyce Rosalynd made a provisional election, without traverse, to prosecute the invention of Group I (claims 1-6 ). Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 7-15 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Claim Objection Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informality: ` Claim 6 depends on claim 1 and recites a compound of formula (V) as a species of component (AC). Although claim 6 does not rise to the level of indefiniteness under 112(b) in view of the disclosure, given that claim 1 does not recite a compound of formula (V), claim 6 should be amended to recite the corresponding formula disclosed in the specification [0032] . Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1 , 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 is drawn to a polyamic acid polymer (PAA), obtained by polymerizing an aromatic dicarboxylic acid component (AC) and a diamine component (D) of formula (I) as recited in claim 1. Although t he recitation of “A polyamic acid polymer” in the preamble implies a polymer having an acid group , the recited process encompasses an aromatic dicarboxylic acid (AC) component which mya be a diacid capable of polymerizing to form a polyamide ( i.e., not a polyamic acid ) , and an aromatic tetracarboxylic acid anhydride capable of providing for a polyamic acid . However , per paragraph [0014] in the instant disclosure “ Part or all of the amic acid groups in polyamic acid polymer, polymer (PAA), may be in the form of an ester. Accordingly the expression "polymer (PAA)" is used in the remainder of the present specification to refer to polyamic acid polymers in which part or all of the amic acid groups are in the form of an ester ” . Therefore , the metes and bounds of claim 1 lack s clarity. Claim 5 is subsumed by rejected base claim 1 and therefore, is included in this rejection. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “X is PH, Cl, Br, I”, and the claim also recites “preferably OH or Cl”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. C laim 4 recites structure (V) shown below: wherein R 2 is be a C 1 -C 20 alkyl radical, optionally substituted with a polymerizable group. However, when both R 2 groups are optionally substituted C 1 -C 20 alkyls, it is unclear how the resulting polymer would correspond to a polyamic acid . In claim 6, the limitations “ 5.0 to 95.0 mol%, 15.0 to 85.0 mol %, even 20.0 to 80.0 mol% ” lack clarity. For the purpose of Examination, in view of the support in the instant disclosure [0029]-[00 50 ] , claim 1 is interpreted as being drawn to a polymer obtained by polymerizing an aromatic dicarboxylic acid component (AC) and a diamine component (D) of formula (I), wherein said aromatic dicarboxylic acid component (AC) is an aromatic tetracarboxylic dianhydride , or compounds of formula (V): wherein R₁ is an aromatic tetravalent group, which may comprise one or more than one aromatic ring, which may be optionally fused together, R₂ is a C₁-C₂₀ alkyl radical, optionally comprising at least one polymerizable group, and X is OH, CI, Br or I . Additionally, the ranges recited in claim 6 are interpreted as ranging from 5.0 to 95.0 mol% . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103 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. 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. Claim s 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" (a)(1) as being anticipated by Critchley et al. ( "Perfluoroalkylene-linked aromatic polyimides. I. Synthesis, structure, and some general physical characteristics", JOURNAL OF POLYMER SCIENCE PART A: POLYMER CHEMISTRY, 1 June 1972, vol. 10, no. 6, pages 1789 - 1807 , cited in and submitted with the IDS). Regarding claims 1-3 , Critchley teaches polyamic acids obtained by the following reaction , and formed from same monomers used for preparing polyimides XVII, XVIII, XXXI and XXXII in Table s 8 and 9 . In these polyimides , R and R’ correspond to C 6 H 3 (CF 2 ) 3 C 6 H 3 (reads on 6-FDA, claim 2) and m,m’-C 6 H 4 (CF 2 ) 5 C 6 H 4 , respectively ( in XVII and XVIII), R and R’ correspond to C 6 H 3 OC 6 H 3 (reads on OPDA, claims 2 and 3) and m,m’-C 6 H 4 (CF 2 ) 5 C 6 H 4 respectively ( in XXX1), and R and R’ correspond to C 6 H 3 COC 6 H 3 (reads on BTDA, claim 2) and m,m’-C 6 H 4 (CF 2 ) 3 C 6 H 4 respectively ( in XXXII) ( Ab., pages 1794, 1802-1803 , Tables VIII and IX ). Disclosed diamines fall within the scope of claimed formula (I). In light of above, the presently cited claims are anticipated by the reference. Claim s 1, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller et al. (US 5,055,550 , cited in the IDS ) . Regarding claim 1, Mueller teaches a poly amic acid obtained by reacting 2,2-bis(4-aminophenyl) hexafluoropropane and 4,4’-bis[2-(3,4- dicarboxyphenyl)hexafluoroisopropyl)diphenyl ether dianhydride (reads on an aromatic carboxylic acid component (AC)) in a polar solvent (Example 2, Table 1 ) . As suitable diamines, the general disclosure teaches compounds of formula (5) , i.e., H 2 N-R-NH 2 , wherein R may be , m and R 2 may be 0 and - ( CF 2 ) r - , respectively. Additionally, specific examples thereof include 1,3-bis(4-aminophenyl)hexafluoropropane, 1,5-bis(4-aminophenyl) deca fluoro pentan e (read on formula (I)) , 2,2-bis(4-aminophenyl) hexafluoropropane and mixtures thereof (col. 3 -6, Table 1 , ref. claims ) . Mueller is silent on a polyamic acid f ormed f rom a polyamine as claimed in one single embodiment . At the outset, it is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05. Given the teaching in Mueller on suitable diamines for forming polyimides via polyamic acid as intermediates, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to prepare a polyamic acid from the disclosed dianhydride and any of the disclosed diamines, including from 1,3-bis(4-aminophenyl)hexafluoropropane, or 1,5-bis(4-aminophenyl)decafluoropentane which fall within those within the scope of claim 1. For instance, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to substitute 2,2-bis(4-aminophenyl)hexafluoropropane in Example 2 with either 1,3-bis(4-aminophenyl)hexafluoropropane or 1,5-bis(4-aminophenyl)decafluoropentane with a reasonable expectation of success. Regarding claim 4, Mueller further teaches copolyamide/esters obtained by reacting diamines of formula (5) shown above, i.e., encompasses with at least one tetracarboxylic acid or ester having the following formula (7): , wherein R 1 may be may be a H or a monovalent C 1 to C 8 alkyl (col. 3 1-24, col. 9, lines 65-col. 10, lines 39). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare a polymer from a diester compound, i.e., X=OH in claimed formula (V) , with any of the disclosed diamine s , including those of the claimed invention. Re ga rding claim 5 , given the teaching on 1,3-bis(4-aminophenyl)hexafluoropropane, 1,5-bis(4-aminophenyl)decafluoropentane and m-phenylene diamine and mixtures thereof (col. 5-6) as being suitable diamines , a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to include a combination of diamines a s in the claimed invention. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.06. Case law holds that “it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven , 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). It would have would have been prima facie obvious, using no more than ordinary creativity, logic, judgment, and common sense, to combine the diamines in equal amounts (i.e. in a 1:1 molar ratio) based on the fact that both are disclosed in parallel as being equally suitable for use in this capacity. This 1:1 ratio falls within the claimed ratio . Claim s 1- 3, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 1216505 (GB ‘505 , cited in and submitted with the IDS) . Regarding claim s 1 -3 , GB ‘505 teaches a process of reacting a diamine with an aromatic tetracarboxylic acid dianhydride or derivative thereof (reads on (AC) , of following formulae: and , wherein X in the diamine may be a divalent group, such as a perfluoroalkylene group - (CF 2 ) n - wherein n is a n integer ranging from 1 to 9, and A is represented by one of the following formulae: . wherein Y is a -CO-, -O- or a perfluoroalkylene group -(CF 2 ) n - with n being an integer ranging from 1 to 9 (page 1 , line 44-page 2, line 97, ref claims 12 and 13). Disclosed starting material s include dianhydrides/diesters/diacids of pryomelli ti c acid , and diphenylether 3,3’,4,4’-tetracarboxylic acid (page 2, lines 81-88). Additionally, disclosed process o f reacting may be carried out in a melt, or in a polar aprotic solvent and the initial product is a polyamic acid (page 2, lines 98-106, ref. claims 14, 15). GB ‘505 further teaches reaction of 1, 5 -bis(3-aminophenyl)decafluoropentane (0. 0064 mole) (reads on D/formula (I)) and bis(3,4-dicarboxyphenyl) ether dianhydride (0.0 064 mole) under dry conditions (Example 8 ) to form a polyimide . GB ‘505 is silent on a polyamic acid obtained by reaching a polyamine of formula (I) in a single embodiment as claimed. At the outset, it is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05. Given the teaching on suitable components for reacting in a polar aprotic solvent forming polyamic acid as an initial product, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to prepare a polyamic acid by reacting a poly amine containing a perfluoroalkylene group with an aromatic tetracarboxylic acid dianhydride or derivative thereof , including those within the scope of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 5, disclosed Example 4 teaches a reaction under dry conditions of under dry conditions 1,3-bis(3-aminophenyl)hexafluoropropane (0.001 mole) (reads on D/formula (I), 1, 5 -bis(3-aminophenyl)decafluoropentane (0.009 mole) (reads on D1) , and bis(3,4-dicarboxyphenyl)ether dianhydride (0.01 mole) (reads on 4,4'- o xydiphthalic dianhydride ). Given the teaching on a combin at ion of two diamines, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to react such components in a polar aprotic solvent so as to provide for a polyamic acid as claimed . Claim s 1-3, 5, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flattery et al. (WO 95/04305 A1). Regarding claims 1-3, 5, Flattery teaches a photosensitive composition comprising a fluorinated polyamic acid of the following formula , formed from either a n aromatic tetracarboxylic dianhydride and/or an aromatic diamine that is fluorinated (Ab., page 7) : wherein, A may be , for e.g., a radical shown below: and B may be , for e.g., a divalent radical of a diamine shown below: w herein R 1 may be -C(CF 3 ) 2 - or C 4-7 F 8-14 (Ab., pages 4-5 , 9, ref. claims ). Disclosed fluorinated diamines include 1,3-bis(4-aminophenyl)hexafluoropropane, 1,5-bis(4-aminophenyl)decafluoropentane , 1,7-bis(4-aminophenyl)tetradecafluoropentane (read on formula (I)), and 2,2-bis(4-aminophenyl)hexafluoropropane (i.e., an isomer of a diamine of formula (I) ) . That is Flattery teaches equivalence of such monomers. Disclosed polyamic acids in Examples are prepared by reacting an anhydride and a diamine, preferably at a molar ratio of 0.98 to 1.0 of diamine to dianhydride (page 13, lines 1-2, page 22 , lines 1-11 ). The polyamic acid of Example 9 corresponds to 3,3’,4,4’-biphenyl tetracarboxylic acid dianhydride (reads on AC) (BPDA,100 mole% ) / p-phenylenediamine (reads on D1) (PPD, 70 mole% ) / 2,2-bis(4-aminophenyl)hexafluoropropane (6FDAM , 30 mol% ). It is noted that 2,2-bis(4-aminophenyl)hexafluoropropane is also an isomer of 1,3-bis(4-aminophenyl)hexafluoropropane the reads on formula (I) (D) . Flattery is silent on a polyamic acid formed from the claimed diamine in one single embodiment as claimed. Given the teaching in Flattery on suitable fluorinated diamines, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to prepare a polyamic acid as in Example 9 , b ut by substituting 2,2-bis(4-aminophenyl)hexafluoropropane with 1,3-bis(4-aminophenyl)hexafluoropropane (also an isomer) , or with any of 1,5-bis(4-aminophenyl)decafluoropentane and 1,7-bis(4-aminophenyl)tetradecafluoropentane, based on their art recognized equivalence , including those of the claimed invention. It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose, so long as the equivalency is recognized in the prior art. In re Ruff , 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958). An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout , 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06. Also, a prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In re Payne , 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder , 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). Regarding claim 6, it is noted that Example 9 is based on BPDA(100)/ PPD (70)/6FDAM, 30. Given the teaching that the linking group in the disclosed diamines may be -C(CF 3 ) 2 - or C 4-7 F 8-14 , i.e., encompasses -C 6 F 12 - as claimed, and the teaching on 1,7-bis(4-aminophenyl)tetradecafluoropentane as a species of the diamine, i.e., a homolog of the claimed species, and incorporating the discussions on substitution with equivalents or with compounds having close structural similarities, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to prepare a polyamic acid within the scope of Flattery, including those of the claimed invention. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Satya Sastri at (571) 272 1112. The examiner can be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5.30PM (EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Mr. 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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll- free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272- 1000. /Satya B Sastri/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762