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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments and amendments, filed on 5/6/26, have been fully considered but they do not confer patentability on all of the instantly filed claims. Applicants have amended independent claim 1 such that variable L is an arylene group which is substituted with one or more C1-C30 alkyl groups, and to further require that an end group of the polymer is hydrogen or an aryl group. Claim 1 also requires that the unit represented by Chemical Formula 1 is in a main chain of the polymer. Claim 2 has been amended to overcome the 112(b) rejection, claim 12 has been canceled, and a new claim 13 has been added which requires the polymer of claim 1 to be a homopolymer.
The prior art rejection to Tanaka et al. (JP-2011001462) has been withdrawn. The hyperbranched polymers taught by Tanaka et al. only employ unsubstituted phenylene groups (1,4- and 1,3-phenylene) as linker L. The instantly filed claims requires that linker L be a substituted arylene group having at least one C1-C30 alkyl groups, which is not taught or suggested by Tanaka et al.
The prior art rejection to Korai et al. (JP-2020105469) has been withdrawn. The polymers taught by Korai et al. have groups which include those of Chemical Formula 1 on a side chain and not on a main chain as required by claim 1. The polymers taught by Korai et al. are mutually exclusive from those which are instantly claimed.
The prior art rejection to Funyuu et al. (US 2012/0074360) is maintained. Applicants argue that the polymers taught by Funyuu et al. have a polymerizable substituent as an end group. However, the end group in the polymers taught by Funyuu et al. can in a broad sense be referred to as an aryl group. This can be seen in the structure of the capping monomer shown
PNG
media_image1.png
50
284
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 48).
While Applicants have amended claim 1 to require that an end group of the polymer is hydrogen or an aryl group, the hyperbranched polymers taught by Funyuu et al. are required to have radically polymerizable end groups as shown in the working examples. These polymerizable end groups are mutually exclusive from the aryl group or hydrogen end groups as instantly claimed.
There are still outstanding 112(b) and 112(d) rejections (which are due to Applicants amendments). Further search has also led to a new prior art rejection as described below.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. Chemical Formula 1-4 has been amended to correct for the 112(b) issue raised in the previous Office action. However, in doing so, Chemical Formula 1-4 now includes variable n9, which is not defined in claim 2, rendering the claim indefinite. Additionally, variable n8 is not included in any of the chemical structures of claim 2, which also renders the claim indefinite. For purposes of further examination, variable n9 will be interpreted as being variable n8, which was previously presented. Correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Variable L in independent claim 1 no longer includes a heteroarylene group as this has been removed from claim 1. Because of this, the polymer of Chemical Formula 1-3 fails to further limit claim 1 as variable L in all three embodiments (where X is equal to O, S, or NR) is a heteroarylene group. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 2 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Variable L in independent claim 1 requires at least one C1-C30 alkyl group. In Chemical Formula 1-1 of claim 2 allows for variable n3 to be equal to zero, which is no longer permitted. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Variable L in independent claim 1 no longer includes a heteroarylene group as this has been removed from claim 1. Because of this, the fourth polymer shown in claim 4 fails to further limit claim 1 as variable L is a heteroarylene group. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Variable L in independent claim 1 is required to be an arylene group which is substituted with one or more C1-C30 alkyl groups. For this reason, the third linker shown in claim 11 does not further limit claim 1 as this is a heteroarylene group. Further, the first linker shown in claim 11 must have at least one alkyl group, and as such, variable g1 cannot be equal to 1. The same can be said in the fourth linker of claim 11. At least one of variables g5 and g6 must be equal to 1 since the linker is required to have at least one alkyl group. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Funyuu et al. (US 2012/0074360).
Claim 1: Funyuu et al. teaches in oligomer synthesis example 1 the preparation of an oligomer1 having a number average molecular weight of 4,652. Paragraph 0249 shows the reaction scheme to prepare the oligomer in synthesis example 1. Tris(4-bromophenyl) amine is co-reacted with 1,4-diboronic acid ester and a capping monomer, referred to as monomer A. The structure as shown anticipates Chemical Formula 1 of claim 1 with L equal to phenyl, a, and b equal to 1, n1 and n2 equal to zero, and L1-L4 equal to phenylene. The number average molecular weight ensures that m1 in Chemical Formula 1 is within the 1-10,000 range. Additionally, Funyuu et al. shows some of the representative structures which are prepared according to paragraphs 0133-0137 (pages 26-28). Structures of the type described in paragraphs 0133 and 0137 anticipate the limitations of Chemical Formula 1 as shown on pages 26-28. Oligomer A of Funyuu et al. is capped with an aryl group. Claim 12 does not limit the aryl group to unsubstituted aryl groups and the curable end-groups in oligomer A anticipates claim 12 in that they are aryl groups in the general sense. Alternatively, it could also be properly said that the end groups are hydrogen atoms, which are bonded to the terminal oxetane-containing aryl group as shown by Funyuu et al.
Claim 5: The oligomer prepared in synthesis example 1 is referred to as oligomer A in paragraph 0248. Example 1 of Funyuu et al. teaches preparing a coating solution comprising oligomer A (paragraph 0298) which anticipates claim 5.
Claims 6 and 7: Example 1 of Funyuu et al. teaches preparing an organic electroluminescent element where oligomer A is employed as a hole transport layer (paragraph 0296). Example 1 teaches applying the polymeric hole transport layer onto an ITO anode, followed by adding an emission layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and an Al cathode (paragraphs 0297-0300), thereby anticipating claims 6 and 7.
Claim 9: Example 1 of Funyuu et al. described in claims 6 and 7 employes a method for preparing an organic electroluminescent device where a first electrode is prepared, organic material layers are deposited on the first electrode, and a second electrode is prepared, wherein the hole transport region (which is located between the anode and the cathode) comprises the coating composition of claim 5, thereby anticipating claim 9.
Claim 10: Paragraph 0298 in Example 1 of Funyuu et al. teaches the photoirradiation and heating of the hole transport coating to form the final hole transport layer. The light-treatment and heat treatment anticipates claim 10.
Claim 13: The oligomer prepared in oligomer synthesis example 1 has identical repeating units along a main chain of the polymer, meaning that such an oligomer can be referred to as a homopolymer, which satisfies claim 13.
Claims 1, 5, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun et al. (Macromolecules, 2005, 38, 2651-2658).
Claim 1: Polymer 8 of Sun et al. is a high molecular weight (Mw = 169,000) hyperbranched polymer which satisfies the limitations of Chemical Formula 1 of claim 1. Polymer 8 is prepared by the homo-polymerization of an AB2-type monomer, which is shown as compound 7, which has the structure
PNG
media_image2.png
194
252
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Scheme 4). After polymerization, the reactive aryl-bromine groups are reacted with fluorene boronic acid so as to end-cap the polymer with fluorene groups (which are aryl groups). As applied to Chemical Formula 1, polymer 8 has m1 equal to an integer which inherently falls within the 1-10,000 range of claim 1 due to the Mw value above, a and b are equal to 1, L is equal to a 9,9-dioctylfluorenyl group, and L1-L4 are all unsubstituted phenylene groups.
Claim 5: Sun et al. further teaches preparing solid films of polymer 8 onto quartz plates, which are prepared by spin-coating a 1 wt% solution of polymer 8 dissolved in THF. The 1 wt% solution in THF is therefore a coating composition which anticipates claim 5.
Claim 13: Polymer 8 can be referred to as a homopolymer since only one type of repeating unit is present, thereby anticipating claim 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest polymers which satisfy the limitations of claim 3. The reasons for claim 8 containing allowable subject matter can be found in the previous Office action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 ROBERT S LOEWE whose telephone number is (571)270-3298. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Robert S Loewe/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
1 An oligomer can certainly be referred to as a polymer under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard.
Prosecution Insights