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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (2018/0105657) in view of Chung (2019/0112425), Wu et al. (2018/0148339).
Regarding claim 1, Chung discloses a method for manufacturing a polyimide film with a reduced gloss (claims 7-8),
Comprising:
Providing a diamine and a diacid anhydride for polymerization in a solvent to form a polyimide precursor solution (abstract), wherein the diamine includes 4,4’-ODA, p-PDA, and the diacid anhydride includes PMDA and BPDA (claim 2);
Coating a carrier with the polyimide precursor solution to form a polyimide gel film (claim 1);
Providing an embossing wheel to roll the polyimide gel film peeled from the carrier at a temperature of equal to or higher than 100 degrees Celsius and a pressure equal to or higher than 1 kg to form a concave and convex shape on a surface of the polyimide gel film (abstract, claim 1, fig. 1-4); and
Baking the polyimide gel film to form a poly8imide film with a 60° gloss of less than 100 GUS (claim 1, 7-8, fig. 1, abstract).
Chung does not teach the molar ratio of the diamines and the diacid anhydrides, adding 2-5 equivalents of a dehydrating agent and a catalyst into the polyimide precursor, the Young’s modulus of 230-350 Kgf/mm2, wherein the dehydrating agent is an aliphatic acid anhydride and/or an aromatic acid anhydride, and the embossing temperature and pressure as claimed. However, Chung teaches an embossing temperature and pressure which overlaps with the claimed range, therefor it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the embossing temperature and pressure since Chung teaches that the embossing temperature and pressure are result effective variables (see table 1, para 30).
Chung ‘245 teaches a polyimide film comprising a dehydrating agent and a catalyst in the polygamic acid solution (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chung with the teaching of Chung ‘245 since Chung ‘245 teaches the dehydrating agent and the catalyst accelerates the chemical reaction (para 4). Chung ‘245 teaches the dehydrating agent has an equivalent number equal to or larger than 3 (para 10), claim 1, and is a tertiary amine such as acetic anhydride (para 15, claim 5). Chung ‘245 further teaches adding 1 equivalent of a catalyst (para 20-26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of catalyst in the polyimide precursor solution in order to optimize the reaction rate of the chemical reaction.
Wu et al. teaches a polyimide film wherein the diamine monomer comprises 4,4’-ODA and PDA with a molar ratio of ODA:PDA being 50:50 to 80:20 (claim 1, abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the molar ratio of the diamine and diacid anhydride since Wu et al. teaches the molar ratio of the monomers is a result effective variable (see table 1). Wu et al. further teachers a Young’s modulus of between about 330 kgf/mm2 and about 480 kgf/mm2 (see claim 10, table 1), which overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 2, Chung discloses wherein a content of the solvent int eh polyimide gel film is between 20 wr% and 50 wt% (para 26, 30, table 1, claim 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the solvent content with the claimed range since Chung teaches that the solvent content is a result effective variable (see para 30, table 1).
Regarding claim 4, Chung discloses wherein the embossing wheel is operated at a temperature of equal to or higher than 100 degrees Celsius and a press ore equal to or higher than 1 Kgf/cm2 (abstract, claim 1). Chung does not teach the claimed temperature and pressure range. However, Chung teaches an embossing temperature and pressure which overlaps with the claimed range, therefor it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the embossing temperature and pressure since Chung teaches that the embossing temperature and pressure are result effective variables (see table 1, para 30).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung in view of Chung ‘245 and Wu et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Heacock et al. (US 3,600,361).
Regarding claim 3, Chung does no teach wherein a roller speed of the embossing wheel is between 1 m/min and 4 m/min. However, Heacock et al. teaches a process for drying polyamide-acid/imide film and teaches that various roll speeds were used to vary the contact time (example 6-7, table III). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the roller speed of the embossing wheel in order to optimize the contact time of the embossing wheel with the polyimide gel film.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUE H LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5522. The examiner can normally be reached 1PM - 10PM.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 5702721176. 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.
/X.H.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742