CTNF 18/547,230 CTNF 85856 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-9 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by JP-200116904 to Takakazu et al. with evidence provided by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0368430 Sriram et al . As to claims 1-7 and 14-15, Takakuza discloses an oriented film used in various displays such as LCDs, CRTs, and PDPs (0001) comprising Parmax-1200 that is benzoyl-substituted poly(p/m-phenylene) with a number average molecular weight of 46,000 (0045). Parmax-1200 has a p-/m- ratio of from 75:25 to 99:1 as taught in Sriam and in particular 85:15 (internet search). As to claims 8-9, Takakuza discloses transparency films (low yellow index) and high film hardness with a pencil hardness rating of at least H (See Table 1) prepared from the composition. With regards to the other properties of the film, the Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference. However, the reference teaches the same polyphenylene polymer with isomeric blends of p-/m- as the current claims and instant specification. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, would implicitly be achieved by a composite with all the claimed ingredients. If it is the applicants’ position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicants’ position; and (2) it would the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 10-13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-200116904 to Takakazu et al. with evidence provided by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0368430 Sriram et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2009/0234077 to Myrick et al . As to claims 10-12 and 16, Takakuza discloses an oriented film comprising Parmax-1200 that is benzoyl-substituted poly(p/m-phenylene) with a number average molecular weight of 46,000 (0045). Parmax-1200 has a p-/m- ratio of from 75:25 to 99:1 as taught in Sriam and in particular 85:15 (internet search). Takakuza discloses a solution of the polymer following by curing of the polymer. Takakuza does not expressly disclose the orienting methods. However, within the same field of endeavor Myrick discloses the use of rigid-rod polyarylene polymers used in films and teaches methods of stretching the films using heat to give specific and desired orientations (0081-0082). Accordingly, at the time of filing it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include stretching techniques taught in Myrick within the process of Takakuza to provide the film with desired orientation. As to claims 13 and 17, the references teach rolling methods to prepare the film. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the use multiple rolls in order to obtain desired thickness, orientation, and other film properties. 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 Application/Control Number: 18/547,230 Page 2 Art Unit: 1763 Application/Control Number: 18/547,230 Page 3 Art Unit: 1763 Application/Control Number: 18/547,230 Page 4 Art Unit: 1763