DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 56, the word “silylation” is twice spelled “sililation”.
In paragraph 91, the word “dimethylsulfoxide” is spelled “dimethylsufoxide”.
Appropriate correction 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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 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.
Regarding Claim 1,
The language of the claim states “A polyimide having a repeating unit…” with an associated structure for the repeating unit, however there is no indication as to the number of repeating units, whether a minimum, maximum, or both, to indicate the number of repeating units that are required. As written, the claim would appear to allow a compound with a single repeat unit, which would not meet the definition of a polyimide, thus rendering the claim to be indefinite. Further, in claim 4, the language refers to a single repeating unit, which would imply that a single unit would be allowed under the language of claim 1 which would not meet the definition of a polyimide.
Regarding Claim 4,
The claim language states “The polyimide according to claim 2, wherein the one or more repeating units are two or more repeating units…” which is unclear. This language could be interpreted to mean that a polymer of multiple different monomers is allowed but could also be interpreted to mean that the polymer simply requires that two or more monomeric units are required. Because it cannot be determined which of the two interpretations is correct, the claim is indefinite.
The applicant is required to review the claim language and to revise as necessary to clearly state the metes and bounds of the claims, keeping in mind that no new matter may be introduced.
Claims 2-3 and 5-9 are rejected based upon their dependency on Claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 contain allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art is Bennour (Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology, 2018, volume 32, issue 17, pages 1886-1898, Non-patent literature reference #1 from IDS dated 2/13/2024) and Ji (Polymers, 2017, volume 9, 569). Bennour teaches a dianhydrohexitol-based poly(ester imide) which are comprised of units of trimellitic anhydride, a diamine such as ortho- and para-phenylene diamine, and isosorbide to generate a poly(ester imide) that meets the structure requirements of the instant claims. However, Bennour teaches that these polymers have glass transition temperatures of 148 and 185 °C for the para and ortho variants of the diamine respectively, which fails to meet the requirement of 210 °C or more as specified in claim 1. Despite the polymers of Bennour meeting the structural requirements, because these polymers fail to have the required glass transition temperature, the composition of the instant application is rendered novel over the prior art.
Ji teaches polymers that contain an isosorbide as well as a variety of diamines that are reacted to form a polyimide which has a glass transition of greater than 210 °C, however Ji teaches that the linkage between the isosorbide and the anhydride compound used to form the imide is an ether and not an ester as required by the structure of claim 1. As a result, the invention of the instant application is novel over the polymers of Ji.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J BERRO whose telephone number is (703)756-1283. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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.
/A.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1765
/JOHN M COONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights