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 .
This Office action is in response to Amendments filed 3/16/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (US 6,066,357) in view of Tao et al. (US 2009/0161699 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tang discloses an inkjet recording medium for an organic semiconductor device (Fig. 6A) comprising a base material (102), an electrode (104), and ink receiving layer (combination of 110 and 120) in this order,
wherein the ink receiving layer has an ink penetration prevention area (portion of the ink receiving layer directly above electrode 104) on an electrode side that prevents an ink which permeates from a surface far from the electrode toward the electrode from reaching the electrode,
the ink receiving layer has an ink penetrating layer (120) including a surface far from the electrode and an ink insoluble layer (110) on the electrode side as the ink penetration prevention area.
Tang discloses that the ink penetrating layer is “an organic light-emitting host material” (Col. 6, Line 49) but does not explicitly disclose that the ink penetrating layer consists of a resin as claimed.
As such, Tang differs from the claimed invention by the substitution of a resin with a non-resin. However, a polystyrene resin and the corresponding function was known in the art (Tao, in the same field of endeavor, discloses forming organic light-emitting host materials consisting of polystyrene (claim 25)). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to have substituted the known compound of polystyrene resin as taught by Tao for the non-resin of Tang and the results of the substitution would have been predictable as an inkjet recording medium with a ink penetrating layer consisting of polystyrene. (see MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding claim 16, Tang in view of Tao discloses the inkjet recording medium for an organic semiconductor device described in claim 1, as discussed above. Tang further discloses that the ink penetration prevention area is paced apart from the base material (as seen in Fig. 6A, it is spaced apart from the base material by electrode 104)
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Tao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. (US 9,188,884 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Tang discloses that the ink insoluble layer includes a charge transport layer (Col. 6, Line 44) but does not disclose that the charge transport layer includes an interpenetrating polymer network structure.
Tang therefore differs from the claimed invention by the substitution of an interpenetrating polymer network structure with a compound other than an interpenetrating polymer network structure However, an interpenetrating polymer network structure and the corresponding function was known in the art (Zhou, in the same field of endeavor, discloses that charge transport layers may include interpenetrating polymer network structures (claim 1 of Zhou)). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to have substituted the known component of an interpenetrating polymer network structure as taught by Zhou for the component of Tang and the results of the substitution would have been predictable as an interpenetrating polymer network. (see MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang and Tao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of and Akasaki et al. (US 5,075,487).
Regarding claim 5, Tang in view of Tao discloses the inkjet recording medium for an organic semiconductor device described in claim 1, as discussed above.
Tang in view of Tao does not disclose the SP values of components of the ink penetrating layer and ink insoluble layer to determine if they fall within the claimed range.
However, using a charge transport layer (equivalent to the ink insoluble layer of Tang) from resins having tetraphenylbenzidine as a main polymerization unit and the corresponding function was known in the art (Akaski, Col. 4, Line 8). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to have substituted the known component of a resin having tetraphenylbenzidine as a main polymerization unit as taught by tetraphenylbenzidine for that of tang and the results of the substitution would have been predictable as a charge transport layer. (see MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
In the resulting configuration, the ink penetrating layer and the ink insoluble layer will have components with SP values such that there exists an ink (the Examiner notes that the ink is not positively recited in claims 1 and 5) with an SP value such that an absolute value of a difference between an SP value of a component of the ink penetrating layer and an SP value of the ink is 3.0 (J/cm3)1/2 or less, and an absolute value of a difference between an SP value of a component of the ink insoluble layer and an SP value of the ink is 3.1 (J/cm3)1/2 or more as the composition of the ink penetrating layer and the ink insoluble layer are consist with the compositions disclosed by Applicant (see Applicant’s claim 6). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6, Tang in view of Tao discloses the inkjet recording medium for an organic semiconductor device described in claim 1, as discussed above, and wherein the ink penetrating layer consists of the polystyrene resin (see rejection of claim 1).
Tang does not disclose the ink insoluble layer contains the claimed composition.
However, using a charge transport layer (equivalent to the ink insoluble layer of Tang) from resins having tetraphenylbenzidine as a main polymerization unit and the corresponding function was known in the art (Akaski, Col. 4, Line 8). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to have substituted the known component of a resin having tetraphenylbenzidine as a main polymerization unit as taught by tetraphenylbenzidine for that of tang and the results of the substitution would have been predictable as a charge transport layer. (see MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Tao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shih (US 2019/0288242 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Tang in view of Tao discloses the inkjet recording medium for an organic semiconductor device described in claim 1, as discussed above.
Tang does not disclose using a release film.
Shih, in the same field of endeavor, discloses forming stacked structures by using a release film to transfer layers individually (¶ 0070). There was a benefit to this method in that each individual layer can be tested for defects prior to final assembly, thereby allowing the underlying layers to still be used as opposed to forming layers directly on top of underlying layers which risks a defect in a top layer requiring replacement of all of the underlying layers as well.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to use the release film transfer method of Shih to place the ink receiving layer on top of the electrode of Tang. In such a configuration, immediately after the ink receiving layer is transferred, the device will have a release film on the ink receiving layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-7, and 16 have been considered but are moot as they relate to previously relied upon reference Otomo whereas the present rejections are rejected over Tang in view of Tao.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRISTOPHER A CULBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4893. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/C.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 2815 /JOSHUA BENITEZ ROSARIO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights