Patent Application 15733830 - POLYIMIDE-BASED POLYMER FILM SUBSTRATE FOR

Title: POLYIMIDE-BASED POLYMER FILM, SUBSTRATE FOR DISPLAY DEVICE, AND OPTICAL DEVICE USING THE SAME

Application Information

Invention Title: POLYIMIDE-BASED POLYMER FILM, SUBSTRATE FOR DISPLAY DEVICE, AND OPTICAL DEVICE USING THE SAME
Application Number: 15733830
Submission Date: 2025-05-14T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2020-11-30T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2020-11-30T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 528
National Sub-Class: 289000
Examiner Employee Number: 83146
Art Unit: 1765
Tech Center: 1700

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 0
103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

No patents were cited in this rejection.

Office Action Text

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 .
The previous prior art rejection under Jiang et al (US 20210040266) in view of Il et al (WO 2017111300) maintained and therefore it is proper to make this rejection FINAL.

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 1-8, 13-14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Jiang et al (US 20210040266) in view of Il et al (WO 2017111300), both cited in the previous Office Action.
Amendments to claims 1, 13 and 15 are noted.
Il teaches variety of diamines, which reads on the Chemical Formula 3 claimed.
In particular, Compound 2 of claim 4 reads on both Chemical Formula 3 and diamine of Chemical Formula 3-1 of claim 13.
The rejection can be found in the NON-FINAL office action mailed 10/28/2024 and is herein incorporated by reference

Response to Arguments

Applicant's arguments filed 4/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that polyimides based on Jiang’s TFMB (2,2'-bis(trifluoromethyl)benzidine) do not achieve Bow value recited in claim 1. This is experimentally proven by Applicant in Comparative Examples 1-2 of instant Specification.
However, Examples above disclose polyimide based on 3,3,4,4 ' - Biphenyltetracarboxylic dianhydride (BPDA), TFMB and BPDA, TFMB and polyimide based on 4,4 ' - (hexafluoroisopropylidene ) diphthalic anhydride (6-FDA).
In contrast, Jiang teaches polyimides based on 9,9′-bis(phthalic anhydride) fluorene (BPAF), BPDA, 6FDA and TFMB (see Examples 7-9).
In order to demonstrate unexpected results, direct comparison of Applicant’s and prior art reference is required (see MPEP 716.02).
Examiner suggests that in order to advance prosecution, the relevant Declaration can be filed.

Applicant submits that there is no motivation I the references cited to replace TFMB in Jiang’s polyimide.
Examiner disagrees. As stated in the previous Office Action, Il teaches that the use of the diamine structure of formula 2 provides the polyimide, having desirable characteristics for flexible display production (see Table 4, Examples 3 and 4).

Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.

Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY LISTVOYB whose telephone number is (571)272-6105. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm EST M-F.
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 Riviere 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.

GL
/GREGORY LISTVOYB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765