DETAILED ACTION
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, 2 and 5 to 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112225906, as interpreted by the English language translation, attached.
CN teaches a polyamic acid solution which contains a polyamic acid polymer, a
solvent, water and an amine compound. The solution has a surface tension of from 40 to 65 mN/m. See paragraphs found under “Disclosure of Invention”.
The polyamic acid shown on the 7th page of the attached document meets the polyamic acid of claim 1 as well as the limitations of claims 11 to 14. See also the definitions of Ar1 and Ar2 which represent residual units formed from the monomers found in these claims.
Note that the N-(R1, R2, R3) ammonium agent meets the claimed catalyst and, as this is present in an aqueous system, it will necessarily be an aqueous catalyst. See page 10.
As such this reference differ from that claimed in that it teaches that the solution has a surface tension of from 40 to 65 mN/m while the claims are directed to a water and polar solvent having a surface tension of 50 mN/m or less.
One having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the claimed range is embraced by the prior art such that selecting a solution having a surface tension of less than 50 mN/m would have been obvious and well within the skill of the teachings in the CN reference.
In addition, adjusting the surface tension of the water and solvent mixture itself in an effort to obtain a final solution having the desired surface tension would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as optimizing and adjusting this surface tension will necessarily result in an optimized surface tension for the final solution. In this manner one having ordinary skill in the art would have found these claims obvious.
For claim 2, keeping the catalyst surface tension within the desired range would have been an obvious choice for one having ordinary skill in the art in an effort to obtain the desired surface tension of the desired composition.
For claim 5, see page 6, under “Disclosure of Invention” which teaches a water to polar solvent ratio that meets the claimed amount.
For claims 6 to 9 see the tertiary amine shown in page 10 of the attached transla-tion and note that at least one of R1-3 can be a hydroxyalkyl, meeting the requirement of a substituted alkyl group in claim 9.
Note that claims 7 and 8 do not require the pyridine compound to be present.
For claim 10, note that adjusting the amount of triamine in the CN reference would have been well within the skill of the ordinary artisan, in an effort to optimize and determine the useful and optimal properties thereof.
For claims 15 to 17, note that the cured product properties will be associated with the product by which they are prepared and as such the product in the CN reference, which has a surface tension requirement that renders obvious that claimed, would be expected to be present in the cured product of the CN reference.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112225906 as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Echigo et al. 5,719,253.
The CN reference does not teach these specific solvents.
Echigo et al. teach a polyamic solution that is comparable to both that in the CN
reference and that claimed. This reference teaches drawback associated with aprotic polar solvents such as those found in the CN reference. See for instance column 2, line 45, through column 3. One drawback of these solvents is the difficulty in removal from the cured films. Instead of the aprotic polar solvents, Echigo et al. teach various water soluble alcohol solvents, as found on column 5, line 57, through column 6, line 20. These solvents include alcohols such as ethanol, 1-propanol and isopropanol.
One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such solvents have a surface tension that would make them suitable for achieving the desired surface tension in the CN reference. For instance the surface tension of ethanol is known to be 22.39 mN/m.
As such one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a solvent as disclosed by Echigo et al. as the solvent in the CN reference with the expect-ation of obtaining predictable and even improved results, as per the teachings in Echigo et al. In this manner claims 3 and 4 are rendered obvious.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1090. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 10 am to 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Heidi Kelly, can be reached at 571-270-1831.
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 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.
Mgm
8/8/26
/MARGARET G MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights