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 § 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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15 and 16 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 15’s method does not result in a circuit board.
Claim 16’s method does not result in a copper clad laminate.
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 1-5,10-14 and 16-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato 2016/0159984 in view of Lin 2015/0018484 or Jung 2010/0255221.
Sato exemplifies (paragraph 205) combining 650g of 2-(2-methoxyethoxy)ethanol (ie applicant’s solvent) with 163.59g pyromellitic dianhydride (ie applicant’s “A”). This is applicant’s step “a”.
Separately, Sato combines 42.36g of 1,3-bis(aminomethyl)cyclohexane (ie applicant’s “B”), 76.967g 1,10-decamethylenediamine (ie applicant’s “B”) and 250g 2-(2-methoxyethoxy)ethanol (ie applicant’s solvent). This is applicant’s step “b”.
The two solutions are combined and reacted (ie applicant’s step “c”). 1.19 benzylamine in 100g of 2-(2-methoxyethoxy)ethanol is then added for end-capping. At this point, the totals are:
1000g solvent
163.59g dianhydride
119.3g diamines
1.19 monoamine
Assuming 100% conversion of the reactants, the solid content would be:
(163.59 + 119.3 + 1.19)/(1000 + 163.59 + 119.3 + 1.19) = 22%
The resulting polyamic acid solution (paragraph 200) is heated (presumably from room temperature) to 1900C and polyimide powder was formed. The imidization is said to have occurred while in the 1300C to 1500C temperature range.
Polyimide powder (paragraph 208) having a D10 of 23.54µm and D50 of 32.51µm is formed. The D10/D50 is 23.54/32.51 or 0.72.
Sato does not report the rate of temperature increase while going through the 700-1300C range.
The increase in temperature to 1900C cannot occur instantaneously. There must be some amount of time elapsing while ramping up to the final 1900C.
Lin and Jung both precipitate polyimide powder from polyamic acid solutions by raising the solution’s temperature. Lin (paragraph 29) exemplifies a 20C/min increase. Jung (paragraph 58) teaches a 1-100C/min increase.
It would have been obvious to carry out Sato’s temperature increase at a rate conventional for polyimide powder production.
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
1,3-bis(aminomethyl)cyclohexane qualifies as applicant’s B1-1 of claim 3 and 1,10-decaamethylenediamine qualifies as applicant’s B2-1 – meeting applicant’s claims 3 and 17.
Pyromellitic anhydride is applicant’s preferred dianhydride – meeting applicant’s claims 4,5 and 18-20.
The powder is to be used in making films and copper clad laminates (paragraph 139) -meeting applicant’s claims 10 and 16.
The properties of claims 11-14 are not reported by Sato. Given the preferred monomers are used in applicant’s preferred amounts, the same properties are expected to result.
The powder (paragraph 208) has a D90 of 44.76µm and D50 of 32.51µm. The D90/D50 is 44.76/32.51 or 1.38 – meeting applicant’s claim 23.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato 2016/0159984 in view of Lin 2015/0018484 or Jung 2010/0255221.
Sato/Lin/Jung apply as explained above.
Sato’s cited example employs 2-(2-methoxyethoxy)ethanol instead of a combination of 2-(2-methoxyethoxy)ethanol with 2-ethylhexanol as the solvent.
However, Sato (paragraph 37) does suggest the inclusion of a secondary solvent such as ethanol, n-propanol, isopropanol etc (paragraph 37).
It would have been obvious to employ any common alcohol as Sato’s secondary solvent. 2-ethylhexanol is a commonly available solvent. And would be expected to provide similar results to using the specifically named alcoholic solvents (see also MPEP 2144.09).
Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato 2016/0159984 in view of Lin 2015/0018484 or Jung 2010/0255221 in further view of Lin 2022/0169792.
Sato/Lin/Jung apply as explained above.
Sato (paragraph 139) suggests using the polyimide to form copper clad laminates, but does not explicitly state “circuit boards”.
One of ordinary skill would immediately recognize “circuit boards” as a common specific embodiment of “copper clad laminate”.
Lin (paragraph 6) can be cited to show copper/polyimide laminates are frequently used to make circuit boards.
Sato’s mere mention of “copper clad laminate” as an end use renders obvious circuit board end uses.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Sato reference does not teach the D10/D50 ratio now required.
This is not convincing as paragraph 208 of Sato shows such a particle distribution was achieved in an example.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J BUTTNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1084. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-3pm.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/DAVID J BUTTNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765 7/28/26
Prosecution Insights