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 .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments, see page 2, line 3, filed 17 July 2026, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iizumi et al. (World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Publication no. WO 2019/003682 A1), hereinafter Iizumi, in view of Kato et al. (Japanese Patent Publication no. JP 2006-259129 A), hereinafter Kato; have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant makes the argument that Kato fails to provide a motivation to combine its teaching of a repeating unit that includes a fluorine atom and the repeating unit including a fluorine atom is a repeating unit represented by Formula (3) of the present application to the teaching of Iizumi. This argument is not persuasive. Applicant argues that the motivation cited to combine said teaching of creating a film free of defects with high optical uniformity is owed to the entirety of the polymer of Kato, not to specifically the repeating unit that includes a fluorine atom and the repeating unit including a fluorine atom is a repeating unit represented by Formula (3) of the present application. The polymer of Kato is a “fluoroaliphatic group-containing polymer having a photoreactive group” which teaches a repeating unit comprising one or more fluorine atoms and a repeating unit comprising a photoreactive group. In addition to the cited section, Paragraph [0068] reinforces the cited motivation wherein Kato states: “the fluorine-based polymer [i.e. absent the photoreactive troup] functions as an agent for preventing unevenness.” Thus, Kato specifically teaches the repeating unit comprising a fluorine atom therein that contributes to it uniformity and thus lack of defects.
2. Applicant further argues present application consequently has unexpected results. Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 716.02. The claims permit an exponential number of polymeric possibilities in any amount and is claimed with open-ended language, i.e. “comprising” thus an essentially unlimited number of unclaimed repeating units may allow comprise the resin claim. Also, the second repeating unit claimed has the sole limitation of comprising a fluorine atom and could, thus, be also a nearly infinite number of possible repeating unit. Thus the data provided is not commensurate in scope with the claim language and Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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:
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iizumi et al. (World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Publication no. WO 2019/003682 A1), hereinafter Iizumi, in view of Kato et al. (Japanese Patent Publication no. JP 2006-259129 A), hereinafter Kato.
6. Regarding Claims 1-13, Iizumi teaches (Paragraphs [0034-0035 and 0045-0075]) a repeating unit represented by Formula (1) of the present application including a photocrosslinkable group. Iizumi teaches (Paragraphs [0034-0035 and 0045-0075]) a repeating unit represented by Formula (2) of the present application. Iizumi teaches (Paragraphs [0034-0035 and 0045-0075]) with regard to Formula (1) of the present application, the moiety “A” is one linking group selected from the group consisting of Formulae (a-1) through (a-4) of the present application. Iizumi teaches (Paragraphs [0034-0035 and 0045-0075]) with regard to Formula (1) of the present application, the moiety “A” is a linking group represented by Formula (a-1) of the present application. Iizumi teaches (Paragraph [0085]) the resin is soluble in a fluorine-based solvent. Iizumi teaches (Paragraph [0085]) a fluorine-based solvent. Iizumi teaches (Paragraph [0085]) an organic solvent. Iizumi teaches (Paragraph [0021]) a photocrosslinked product. Iizumi teaches (Paragraphs [0089-0097]) a pattern, which is constituted by a photocrosslinked product. Iizumi teaches (Paragraphs [0115-0117]) an electronic device, comprising a photocrosslinked product.
7. However, Iizumi fails to explicitly teach a repeating unit that includes a fluorine atom. Furthermore, Iizumi fails to explicitly teach the repeating unit including the above fluorine atom is a repeating unit represented by Formula (3) of the present application.
8. Kato teaches (Paragraphs [0038-0042]) a repeating unit that includes a fluorine atom. Kato teaches (Paragraphs [0038-0042]) the repeating unit including the above fluorine atom is a repeating unit represented by Formula (3) of the present application. Kato teaches (Paragraph [0008]) resins comprising said repeating units produce films free from defects with high optical uniformity.
9. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that Iizumi in view of Kato teaches a repeating unit that includes a fluorine atom; and the repeating unit including the above fluorine atom is a repeating unit represented by Formula (3) of the present application. Doing so would result in films free from defects with high optical uniformity, as recognized by Kato.
Conclusion
10. 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).
11. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to RICHARD D CHAMPION at telephone number (571) 272-0750. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Mon-Fri EST.
13. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KEITH D HENDRICKS can be reached at (571) 272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
14. 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 http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
15. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/R.D.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1737
