CTNF 18/983,724 CTNF 87016 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions 08-25 AIA Applicant's election with traverse of Group I claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 4/29/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would be no search burden in searching the different statutory classes of invention . This is not found persuasive because the search areas and strategies for methods of using polysiloxane and polysiloxane containing products are different from the composition claims. Applicant also argues the different classification are not independent adequate grounds for restriction. However, the restriction requirement identifies the different classification and further includes an explanation as to how the inventions are independent or distinct. The explanation from the restriction requirement is maintained and the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-5, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by AKIYAMA et al. (US 2006/0216531) . Regarding claims 1-3, AKIYAMA teaches a silica based film formed from a hydrolysis-condensation reaction of two silica compounds [0016] . Compound B, represented by formula (4), corresponds to the claimed first compound: PNG media_image1.png 128 128 media_image1.png Greyscale R x represents an organic group with a carbon-carbon double bond and the R 81-83 are an organic group or alkoxy groups [0021] and [0111] . Specific examples in [0114] include vinyldimethylmethoxysilane, where R x is a vinyl (C=C), one R group is CH 3 , and two R groups are OCH 3 . This corresponds to the claimed formula (1) where m1 is 1; X is OR (and R is C 1 alkyl - CH 3 ); n1 is 2; Y is C 1 -alkyl; and p1 is 1. Compound A, represented by formula (3), corresponds to the claimed second compound which is a dipodal silane and does not contain a vinyl group: PNG media_image2.png 36 522 media_image2.png Greyscale In that formula R 3-6 are organic groups and R 7 can be O or a C1-6 alkyl [0020] and [0109] . Specific examples in [0059] include 1,1,3,3-tetramethoxy-1,3,-dimethyldisiloxane. This corresponds to formula (3) where L is O; z is 1; X is OR (and R is the C 1 alkyl - CH 3 ); n4 and n5 are each 2; Y is the C 1 alkyl CH 3 ; and p4 and p5 are 1. Regarding claim 4, AKIYAMA specifically teaches the compound (3) corresponding to the claimed dipodal silane compound can be bis(dimethoxymethylsiyl)methane [0063] which corresponds to: PNG media_image3.png 76 142 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding claim 5, AKIYAMA specifically teaches the compound (4) can be vinyldimethylmethoxysilane [0114] which corresponds to: PNG media_image4.png 90 68 media_image4.png Greyscale However, the examiner notes this is a non-elected species. Regarding claims 9 and 10, The specification does not particularly describe how a composition is configured for use in a nanoimprint lithography process or inkjet adaptive planarization process. However, the examiner notes that those processes are wet processes. AKIYAMA teaches mixing the components in an organic solvent [0088] . The wet composition is therefore considered to be “configured” for use in wet processes such as nanoimprint lithography and inkjet processes . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AKIYAMA et al. (US 20060216531) . Regarding claim 7, AKIYAMA teaches preferably using 1-100 parts component (B) (claimed first compound) to 100 parts component (A) (claimed second compound) [0117] . The reference therefore teaches a range that overlaps at the ratio of 1:1 and is considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I. In addition, generally changes in concentration are not patentable without showing unexpected results, MPEP 2144.05.II. Regarding claim 8, AKIYAMA teaches preferably using 1-100 parts component (B) (claimed first compound) to 100 parts component (A) (claimed second compound) [0117] . The reference does not teach using more of component (B) (claimed first compound). The reference teaches that using more than 100 parts component (B) makes the composition difficult to apply but also notes that using too little will not result in sufficient adhesion [0117] . AKIYAMA then offers the preferred range. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that greater adhesion strength could be achieved at the at the cost of application difficulty and non-uniformity. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill to determine that the preferred range for AKIYAMA does not apply to their design specification that require maximized adhesion strength. Generally changes in concentration are not patentable without showing unexpected results, MPEP 2144.05.II . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AKIYAMA et al. (US 20060216531) in view of KODA et al. (US 2022/0289969) . Regarding claim 5, AKIYAMA specifically teaches the compound (4) can be vinyldimethylmethoxysilane [0114] but does not teach the elected species of divinyltetratmethyl-disilazane. AKIYAMA further teaches that a silane coupling agent can be incorporated into the composition [0184] but does not expressly teach divinyltetramethyl-disilazane. However, KODA teaches that organosilazanes are known silane coupling agents [0094] and specifically teaches the use of 1,3-divinyl-1,1,3,3-tetramethyldisilazane [0095] . At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to include the silane coupling agent of KODA as the silane coupling agent of AKIYAMA as a simple substitution of known equivalent silane coupling agents. Regarding claim 6, AKIYAMA teaches a composition that includes a silane coupling agent, corresponding to the claimed first compound in addition to a dipodal silane as described above. The examiner notes that the composition would further include additional compounds such as vinyldimethylmethoxysilane, but additional components are within the scope of the comprising language of the claim. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. 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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571272-1418. 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. /AUSTIN MURATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/983,724 Page 2 Art Unit: 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/983,724 Page 3 Art Unit: 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/983,724 Page 4 Art Unit: 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/983,724 Page 5 Art Unit: 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/983,724 Page 6 Art Unit: 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/983,724 Page 7 Art Unit: 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/983,724 Page 8 Art Unit: 1712
Prosecution Insights