DETAILED ACTION
In the amendment filed on December 1, 2025, claims 8 – 9, 12 – 13, 17, 19 – 21, 34 – 41 are pending. Claim 8 has been amended and claims 1 – 7, 10 – 11, 14 – 16, 18, 22 – 33 have been canceled. Claims 34 – 41 have been added.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 34 – 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 34:
Claim 34 recites the following [emphasis added]:
A method for preparing a covalent organic framework (COF) thin film, the
method comprising expelling a plurality of COF colloidal ink drops having an effective
deposition diameter from a nozzle onto the substrate,
wherein expelling the plurality of COF colloidal ink drops comprises expelling a
first plurality of COF colloidal ink drops and a second plurality of COF ink drops, the
first plurality of COF colloidal ink drops comprising a first COF and the second plurality
of COF colloidal ink drops comprising a second COF different than the first COF, or
wherein the first plurality of COF colloidal ink drops are deposited on the
substrate, thereby forming a thin film of the first COF, and the second plurality of COF
colloidal ink drops are deposited on the thin film of the first COF or the first plurality of
COF colloidal ink drops are deposited on a first substrate region and the second plurality
of COF colloidal ink drops are deposited on a second substrate region different than the
first substrate region.
As is apparent in the above recitation, present claim 34 recites the limitation " or wherein the first plurality of … ink drops … and the second plurality of … ink drops …" in the last “wherein” clause. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The recited first plurality and second plurality are found in the first wherein clause as components of the COF colloidal ink drops. The requirements first wherein clause as recited is an alternative to the requirements of the second wherein clause since the operative conjunction “or” is placed between the two clauses. Because the two clauses are alternatives, the COF colloidal ink drops recited in the sole required step of the method is not required to be comprised of the first plurality and second plurality of COF colloidal ink drops; thus at first blush either the recited “first plurality” and “second plurality” of the second wherein clause refer to unrecited elements, or the conjunction “or” between the two “wherein” clauses is incorrection and the conjunction is meant to be “and”, thus rendering the claim indefinite. Aggravating the lack of clarity, the first wherein clause further defines substeps to the “expelling of a plurality of COF colloidal ink particles”, but the alternative wherein clause recites conditions of deposition of the colloidal ink drops, which is not necessarily tied to the “expelling” step.
If the intention is for the two clauses to be both required, the Examiner suggests that the conjunction “or” that conjoins the two clauses be changed to “and”. The Examiner notes that should such an amended be entered, the subject matter of an amended-claim 34 would neither be anticipated nor rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejections of the claims under 35 USC § 103 in the previous Office Action are withdrawn due to Applicant amendment.
Claim(s) 34 – 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith. "Colloid Covalent Organic Frameworks" 58-65. ACS Central Science. 12. January 2017; Vol. 3; pages 58-65; DOI: 10.1021/acscentsci.6b00331 (hereafter “Smith”, of record) in view of JP 2004314619A (hereafter “Asano”, machine translation provided, of record) and any one of Tahira et al. US 20060125363 A1 (hereafter “Tahira”) or Bondavalli et al. US 20160253588 A1 (hereafter “Bondavalli”).
Regarding claim 34, 37:
In view of the indefiniteness of the claims, Smith is directed to covalent organic frameworks (COF) and their methods of production (Abstract, page 62 right column). Smith discloses a method comprising: solution cast depositing/printing [expelling droplets] of COF colloids [colloidal ink drops] onto a substrate (page 62 right column, page 59 1st paragraph; Fig. 6). Smith discloses that the colloidal COF nanoparticles may have particle sizes of e.g. 15 – 20 nm (Figure 5), 21nm (page 62 1st col), 30nm, 230 nm (page 60). Furthermore, Smith discloses that the colloidal COF nanoparticles are polydisperse, meaning of different sizes [different COFs] (Figure 3).
Smith does not expressly teach: that the expelled droplets have an effective deposition diameter and that a nozzle defines such an effective deposition diameter; that the plurality of COF colloidal ink drops dry as they make contact with the substrate.
With regards to the expelled droplets having an effective deposition diameter and that a nozzle defines such an effective deposition diameter:
Asano is directed to a method of discharging coatings onto substrates ([0001]). Asano discloses having an effective deposition diameter from a nozzle onto the substrate using an ink-jet liquid ejection apparatus having an electrostatic attraction type liquid droplet nozzle 10 which can eject droplets of the ejection liquid having the smallest droplet diameter of 1 μm or less as driven with a low voltage ([0006], [0009] – [0010], [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Smith by depositing the COF solution by inkjet printing, and therefore have expelled the COF solution droplets from a nozzle with an effective deposition diameter because Smith teaches that printing COF thin films is known in the art (page 63) and Asano teaches that inkjet printing would give more control over the size of the droplets prints, as ink-jet printers use voltage to have a very controlled droplet size when printing ([0009]). The ability to control the droplet size would also allow the manufacturer to improve and standardize the reproducibility of the thin films and ensure that the films are thin.
With regards to the plurality of COF colloidal ink drops drying as they make contact with the substrate:
In analogous art, Tahira is directed to a method for producing an active matrix organic EL display element by an inkjet method to eject droplets of liquid (Abstract). The droplets ejected from an electrostatic inkjet apparatus. The droplets of liquid comprise a high polymer material ([0002], [0247] – [0248]). Tahira further discloses that the volume of the droplets that are ejected is 1 picoliter (pL) or less, which is related to the diameter of the ejected (Abstract; [0091], [0096], [0101]). When the droplet volume ejected from a nozzle is 1 pL or less, the droplet then dries immediately upon contact with an organic EL layer region on a substrate and deposits the high polymer material ([0101]). The immediate drying of the droplet makes it difficult for the droplet material to move after landing on the substrate and therefore allows the formation of e.g. EL layers or spacers with accurate positioning and minimal movement of preceding droplets that previously landed; additionally such an immediate drying allows deposition with no adverse effects from remaining solvent on a substrate, such as the solvent affecting an alignment film ([0093] – [0094], [0101], [0113] – [0014], [0126], [0145] – [0146]; [0013] comparing the problems of a lack of patterning accuracy in conventional inkjet).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Smith in view of Asano to have further adjusted the effective deposition diameter to enable the COF colloidal ink drops to dry as they make contact with the substrate because Tahira suggests that controlling the volume – and thus diameter – of the droplets to enable immediate drying aids in the positioning of desired coatings onto substrates alongside solvent bleeding affecting any adjacent features/films.
Alternatively also in analogous art, Bondavalli is directed to neuromimetic networks and methods of making such networks by spraying a solution containing nanometric objects onto a substrate (Abstract; [0001], [0034], [0036], [0043], [0052]). Bondavalli further discloses a step of heating the substrate above the evaporation temperature of the solvent during the spraying of solution onto the substrate ([0053] – [0054]). The droplets of the sprayed solution are uniformly deposited onto the substrate and instantaneously evaporate [drying] on contact with the substrate, which helps avoid “coffee drop” deposits that have a non-uniform distribution of the nanometric objects previously in solution within the droplet ([0055]).
Therefore, it would have also and/or alternatively been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Smith in view of Asano to have heated the substrate to a temperature that enables the COF colloidal ink drops to dry as they make contact with the substrate because Bondavalli suggests that such heating and instantaneous evaporation helps prevent uneven and undesired deposits in a coffee drop formation.
Regarding claim 35:
Smith in view of Asano and any one of Tahira or Bondavalli does not expressly teach that the method further comprises heating the substrate to an effective COF temperature or further masking the substrate.
However, Smith discloses another method of depositing thin films of COFs by solution casting the COF colloidal suspensions onto substrates (page 62 2nd column). During/after depositing the colloidal suspension onto the substrate, the substrate is heated to 90°C [effective deposition temperature] in order to evaporate the solvent from the colloidal solution.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Smith in view of Asano by heating the substrate to a temperature effective to evaporate the solution of the inkjet-deposited colloidal solutions because Smith teaches that free-standing COF free-standing films require evaporation of the solvent and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to heat such substrates in order to hasten evaporation.
Regarding claim 38:
Smith does not expressly teach that the effective deposition diameter of the plurality of COF colloidal ink drops have a maximum diameter of less than 20 micrometers.
However, Asano discloses that their inkjet droplets may have droplet sizes of 1 µm or less ([0007], [0009], [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Smith by depositing the COF solution by inkjet printing, and therefore have expelled the COF solution droplets from a nozzle with an effective deposition diameter because Smith teaches that printing COF thin films is known in the art (page 63) and Asano teaches that inkjet printing would give more control over the size of the droplets prints, as ink-jet printers use voltage to have a very controlled droplet size when printing ([0009]).
Claim(s) 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Asano and any one of Tahira or Bondavalli as applied to claims 8, 9, 13, 17, 19 above, and further in view of Decre et al. US 6,709,705 B2 (hereafter “Decre”).
Regarding claim 36:
Smith in view of Asano does not expressly teach both the steps of heating the substrate and masking the substrate, wherein the plurality of COF colloidal ink drops are deposited on an unmasked region of the substrate.
With regards to the step of heating the substrate:
As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Smith by depositing the COF solution by inkjet printing, and therefore have expelled the COF solution droplets from a nozzle with an effective deposition diameter because Smith teaches that printing COF thin films is known in the art (page 63) and Asano teaches that inkjet printing would give more control over the size of the droplets prints, as ink-jet printers use voltage to have a very controlled droplet size when printing ([0009]). The ability to control the droplet size would also allow the manufacturer to improve and standardize the reproducibility of the thin films and ensure that the films are thin.
With regards to masking the substrate, wherein the plurality of COF colloidal ink drops are deposited on an unmasked region of the substrate:
Smith discloses that the colloidal covalent organic framework solutions may be useful for a broad range of applications such as optoelectronics, energy storage and organic electronic devices (Abstract; page 58 1st column). Smith also discloses a desire to form COF thin films selectively (page 58 1st column).
Decre is directed to methods of producing tracks on substrates for the manufacture of e.g. electronic components such as polymeric light emitting diodes (Abstract, col 3 lines 30 – 40). Decre discloses a method (col 3 line 55 – col 4 line 45, Fig. 2, 3, 4) comprising: providing a substrate; providing a relief pattern of a first solidified liquid [masking]; and spraying a desired track material inside the provided relief pattern by e.g. inkjet (col 4 lines 5 – 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Smith in view of Asano by including a step of masking a substrate and depositing the plurality of COF colloidal ink drops in unmasked regions such as inside a relief pattern because Decre suggests that patterned tracks are desired structures for creating electronic devices, which Smith suggests is a useful application for colloidal covalent organic framework coatings, and Decre teaches that masking a substrate aids in forming such patterned coatings.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 39 – 41 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 8 – 9, 12 – 13, 17, 19 – 21 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8:
In the context of the recited method, the prior art of record does not teach and does not reasonably suggest expelling the plurality of COF colloidal ink drops by the recited pneumatic system.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:30.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on (571) 272-1295. 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.
/JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717