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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 18-25 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, drawn to a polymer blend as outlined in the Election/Restriction Requirement made 08/29/2024, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/04/2024. This requirement is made final.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Arguments regarding the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejections made over art in the prior Non-Final Rejection are accepted and hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s Arguments regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections are considered but not accepted to warrant withdrawal of the rejection.
Principally, patents are art for all they contain (MPEP 2123) – the disclosure of He imparts specific importance to the alkyl chains present on the polymer, but that does not negate the presence of the various functionalities disclosed to also be present on those alkyl chains. A person of ordinary skill would not disregard those functionalities as somehow unamenable to forming a curable composition. The specific discussion of alkyl chains by the reference does not disparage substituted embodiments of those chains that are also contemplated by the reference – placing, for example, an acrylate group onto the alkyl chains does not force the substituted alkyl chain from acting as such as there is no disparagement of such substitution. As such, the focus on alkyl chains for improvement does not disparage the uv-curability of the composition, and a person of ordinary skill in the art who arrives at an unsaturated embodiment from the specifically taught R-group substitutions (alkyl, acrylate, for example) would necessarily arrive at an embodiment that is UV-curable.
Applicant’s assertions of unexpected superior performance are appreciated, but the cited sections [00096]-[00097] are directed to manufacturing steps and products therefrom that are neither reflected in the claims of either the currently examined group nor in the withdrawn claims. These sections at this time are considered attorney argument in view of specification’s broad assertions There are no manufacturing steps nor thin film products resulting from manufacturing steps recited in the claims. The Examiner has also considered the experimental sections [000131]-[0001 of the Specification with regards to superior unexpected results abetting claims of superior performance, but while the Examiner believes assertions made regarding the on-off ratios in the entries 1-3 regarding are of practical significance, the embodiments present in the experimental results are not commensurate with the broad scope of the claims as currently present in the application (MPEP 716.02), and the relative statistical significance that can be ascribed to three values corresponding to three narrow embodiments of devices resultant from processing the claimed polymers is not convincing. Further data supporting an assertion of unexpected superior results would be needed to help arrive at a more definitive determination.
Regarding the rejections made of He in view of Shinohara, He and Shinohara both disclose OSC polymers. He does not include a photoactive crosslinker specifically delimited as such, it includes a photocrosslinkable polymer that is crosslinkable by nature of having crosslinkable side-chains. Regarding applicant’s discussion of chemical similarity, Shinohara’s OSC polymers are substantially arylene polymers comprising subunits such as thiophenes having crosslinkable moieties, and the reactivity of crosslinkable moieties is not inherently tied to the remainder of the structure that moeity is attached to.
The rejections over 35 USC 103 as laid out in the prior office action are maintained.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al (US 20160222167 A1).
Regarding Claim 1-4 and 9-13, He discloses composition comprising heterocyclic fused thiophene based compounds, polymers based on the aforementioned compounds, and methods for making the monomer components thereof and polymer as well as uses in thin film and other applications and devices (Abstract).
The polymers of He are comprised of repeat units outlined in formulas 1’ or 2’ (see [0008] – [0016]) and [0050]-[0074] as well as those composed of units outlined in [0017]-[0022], with specific examples outlined in the figures.
PNG
media_image1.png
284
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
254
534
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wherein in 1’ or 2’ the subscripts n and m may be integers greater than equal to one, each of R1-R8 may be independently a hydrogen, substituted C4 or greater alkyl, substituted or unsubstituted C4 or greater alkenyl/alkynyl, substituted C5 or greater cycloalkyl; a-d are each independently integers greater than or equal to 3; e and f are each independently integers greater than or equal to 0; X and Y are each independently a covalent bond, an optionally substituted fused/unfused aryl/heteroaryl group, alkyne or alkene; A and B may each independently be S or O, wherein the structure is bounded by the provisos of [0009]-[0014] or [0051]-[0056].
As per the discussion at [0057]-[0063], the groups R1-R8 may be at least substituted with a functional group such as amino, ester, aldehyde, hydroxy, alkoxy, thiol, thioalkyl, halide, acyl halide, acrylate, or vinyl ether moieties, or any combination of two or more of these groups. The molecular weight of the polymer is at least 10,000.
The reference discloses that an unexpected advantage of the compounds as shown in 1’ and 2’ having at four long alkyl chains having branching points at C4 or greater positions include improved chain mobility and processability and a higher field effect. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed invention from the general disclosure discussed above with recognition that the taught composition above would impart improved processability and field effect properties.
Claim(s) 5, 6, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al (US 20160222167 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shinohara et al (US 20090088550 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, 6 and 14, He discloses the limitations of the claim as discussed above regarding claim 1. He, however, does not disclose a crosslinker or photoinitiator as part of the composition, only the OSC polymer.
This limitation is met by Shinohara.
Shinohara discloses a composition for conductive materials to be used in forming conductive layers having high carrier transport ability and electronic devices comprising the conductive layer(s).
Shinohara’s compounds comprise arylamine derivatives as well as components such as thiophene ([0267]).
A crosslinking compound E1, a polyethylene glycol dimethacrylate is also taught as part of the composition. Additional crosslinkers taught by the reference include 1,6-hexanediol dimethacrylate and those compounds discussed from [0233]-[0254] such as trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate. While the compounds, specifically 1,6-hexanediol dimethacrylate and the related compounds of [0233], are not quite acrylate compounds, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the structural similarity between acrylates and methacrylates (a single methyl group) imparts similar properties to them and as such a person of ordinary skill would recognize they may share utility arising from their similar properties (See MPEP 2144.09) (Claim 5). These compounds are structurally similar to compound C11 in claim 14, and a person of ordinary skill would recognize the structural similarity of these compounds disclosed versus the claimed compound C11 imparts similar utility and reactivity in a composition – such a person od ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed invention’s C11 compound from the disclosed 1,6 hexanediol dimethacrylate by way of structural similarity with the expectation of similar results.
Photoinitiator species are also taught by Shinohara, wherein the photoinitiator species may be those of [0317] – such as benzoin or xanthene species. Specific experimental embodiments of these include that of Example 1F wherein crosslinking agents E1 and an arylamine derivative L11 were used in combination with a photoradical polymerization imitator IRGACURE 615 to produce an organic semiconductor material. The weight ratio of L11+E1 to Initiator was 19:1, wherein the initiator is thus present in 5% by weight of the composition, falling within and rendering obvious the range of claim 6.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed invention by incorporating the initiator of Shinohara, and the 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate monomer C11 by way of structural similarity from the disclosed compounds of Shinohara, into the composition of He to arrive at a composition capable of forming a charge carrying layer having improved processability and high carrier transport mobility.
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 ANDREW PRESTON TRAYWICK whose telephone number is (571)272-2982. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, Mark Huff can be reached on 571-272-1385. 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.P.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights