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Claims 1-8 and 15-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/24/25.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 9-14 and 20 in the reply filed on 11/24/25 is acknowledged.
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.
The instant claims contain the transitional phrase “comprising”. Per MPEP 2111.03 ‘The transitional term “comprising”, which is synonymous with “including,” “containing,” or “characterized by,” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps'. This open-ended definition has been taken into consideration in the following rejections.
Claims 9-11, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20110078007A to Yang et al. (hereinafter Yang) using a machine translation.
Regarding claim 9, Yang discloses an ink composition (page 1) for use in the deposition of a photoactive layer of an optoelectronic device, the ink composition comprising:
- a colloidal suspension (dispersion) of nanoparticles in a printable liquid medium (page 2, para 3) comprising a polar solvent (pages 3 and 9), wherein the nanoparticles are capped with a shell of ligands (capping molecules), wherein the ligands have a molecular architecture including:
a thiol head (tail) group bound to a surface site of said nanoparticle;
an ionically charged tail (head) group having a counter ion associated therewith; and
an alkyl spacer separating the head group and the tail group having a total number of carbon atoms n in a range of 2 to 20, which overlaps the instantly claimed range of from 1 to 3 (page 2, para 3).
See MPEP 2144.05(I), which states that ‘In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists’.
Yang further discloses wherein the polar solvent comprises a mixture of water and ethylene glycol (mixture of solvents including aqueous solvents and ethylene glycols, page 2, para 3). The reference is silent regarding the limitation “wherein the volume fraction of ethylene glycol in the mixture is in a range between five and fifty percent”. However, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A), which states that ‘Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical’. One of ordinary skill in the art is expected to arrive at the optimal volume ratios of water and ethylene glycol to facilitate efficient inkjet printing, via routine experimentation.
The preamble of the claims recites, “for use in the deposition of a photoactive layer of an optoelectronic device”, which is an intended use limitation. See MPEP 2111.02(II), which states that “to satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim’. In the instant case, Yang teaches that the ink can be used to make printed electronics (page 2, para 2). Therefore the Yang ink is deemed capable of performing the intended use.
As discussed above, Yang discloses an overlapping ink. Yang does not expressly recite the product by process limitation “wherein the nanoparticles are capped with a shell of second ligands replacing an initial shell of different first ligands”. However, MPEP 2113 states “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
MPEP 2113 also states “The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. See, e.g., In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279, 162 USPQ 221, 223 (CCPA 1979)”. In the instant case, it is found that the instantly claimed process of ligand exchange does not impart structural or functional characteristics to the claimed product. The “first” ligand that is replaced is not expected to significantly alter the final ink absent evidence to the contrary. The “second” ligands are the only ligands present in the final ink.
Regarding claim 10, Yang discloses the ink composition according to claim 9, wherein the composition is essentially without first (exchanged) ligands or free unbound second ligands as there is no disclosure of additional, free, or unbound ligands. Also see page 10, para 1 of Yang, which discloses the importance of adsorbing ligands/capping molecules to the nanoparticles to maintain high ink stability.
Regarding claims 11 and 20, Yang discloses the ink composition according to claim 9, wherein the (second) ligands/capping molecules are N,N,N-trimethyl(mercaptoalkyl)ammonium chloride (page 7, para 1) which has the formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
80
188
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein
"n" is between 1 and 3;
"R1" and "R2" are each independently selected from H and methyl; and
"X" is a halide, Cl.
Regarding claim 14, Yang discloses the ink composition according to claim 9,
comprising a p-type dopant (metals or metal oxides, page 2, para 3).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of US 2009/0246674 A1 to Carlini et al. (hereinafter Carlini).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Yang discloses the ink composition according to claim 9, but fails to expressly disclose the ink comprising a pyrrolidone additive or one or more polymeric additives.
However, Carlini does teach an inkjet ink (para [0012]) comprising nanoparticles with surface functionality (para [0044]) in a polar solvent (para [0087]) further comprising pyrrolidones and one or more polymeric additives as surface active stabilizers (para [0080]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the pyrrolidone and polymeric additives of Carlini to the Yang ink to prevent or limit the degree of particle aggregation (Carlini, para [0080]), maximizing dispersibility and stability of the ink suspension (Yang, page 2) to thereby facilitate smooth, continuous inkjet printing of the ink without clogs or blocks (Carlini, para [0012]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNNE EDMONDSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2678. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/L.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/Matthew E. Hoban/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734