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 .
Status of Claims
The examiner acknowledges the amendment to claim 1 as well as the cancellation of claims 2-6 and 8-11. Claims 1, 7, and 15-25 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection for indefiniteness regarding claim 15 is withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1, 7, 15-17, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (Polymer (2012) volume 53, pages 5459-5468, Non-patent literature reference 2 from IDS dated 7/15/2023) as evidenced by Yamanaka (US 9,080,017).
Regarding Claim 1,
Hu teaches a hyperbranched polycarbosilane (Abstract) which can be made through the hydrosilylation reaction using tetrakis(dimethylsilyloxy)silane and 1,3-divinyltetraphenyldisilane which are coupled using Karsted’s catalyst (a platinum hydrosilylation catalyst) where the vinyl-containing silane is used in an amount of 3.1 equivalents relative to the number of Si-H bonds (Example 6) and also tetrakis(dimethylsilyloxy)silane and 1,3-divinyl-1,3-dimethyl-1,3-diphenyldisiloxane (Example 7). Based upon the amount of the components used in example 7, the amount of aromatic carbon is 42% by weight of components A and B, meeting the requirement of the instant claims.
With regard to the requirement of at least one organosilanes being of the formula Z(SiR12H)a where Z is a phenylene group, Hu is silent. However, Hu teaches the use of tetrakis(dimethylsilyloxy)silane, which is part of a Markush grouping with other silanes containing two or more Si-H bonds as evidenced by Yamanaka (Column 26, Lines 54-63) where such compounds are used in the formation of siloxane polymers. As such, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have utilized compounds of the same Markush grouping alone or in combination to obtain the predictable result of a siloxane polymer. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted). See MPEP 2144.06.I.
Regarding Claim 7,
Hu teaches the use of tetrakis(dimethylsilyloxy)silane in examples 3 and 6, meeting the requirements of the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 15,
Hu does not explicitly speak to the use of crosslinking systems. However, Hu does teach that the disclosed method allows for a variety of functionalities to terminate the polymer for further reaction, including vinyl end groups (Page 5460, right column, first paragraph) and further states that these functionalities serve as reactive sites for subsequent chemistries (Page 5467, left column, Conclusion section paragraph 1). It would logically follow that reactions of these end groups would include crosslinking. An ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to use these reactive end groups for crosslinking in order to not only increase the molecular weight of the polymer to reduce solubility, but also to improve material toughness. It would therefore have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have used any reaction of these end groups, including crosslinking, in any amount to afford the desired properties in the final material.
Regarding Claims 16 and 17,
On page of 6 the specification, the applicant states that the crosslinking agent may be the same or different than the silane as required in claim 1 (Lines 20-26) and includes the silane used by Hu as an option (tetrakis(dimethylsilyloxy)silane). As Hu teaches that the reactive end groups, including vinyl groups, may be used for subsequent reactions (Page 5467, left column, Conclusion section paragraph 1), it would logically follow that such a reaction would be allowed by Hu. It would therefore have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have used a crosslinking reaction with a silane with at least 2 Si-H bonds, including tetrakis(dimethylsilyloxy)silane, which has 4, meeting the requirement of claim 17.
In the alternative, by utilizing a crosslinking agent that is the same as the one used in the initial polymerization, this would constitute an alteration in the sequence of addition of the same components. As such, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have added the reactants in any order, including a second addition of the Si-H containing silane. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.C.
Regarding Claims 20 and 21,
The refractive index and dielectric constant of a material are functions of composition of the material, and it would necessarily follow that because Hu discloses compounds of similar composition to those of the instant claims, the material taught by Hu would have properties like those of the instant claims. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01.II.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (Polymer (2012) volume 53, pages 5459-5468, Non-patent literature reference 2 from IDS dated 7/15/2023) as evidenced by Itoh (Macromolecules, 1998, volume 31, pages 5609-5615).
Hu teaches polymers that are terminated with vinyl groups that can be further reacted as discussed above in regard to claim 15. Hu is silent on what reactions may be used on these groups. However, it is known that vinyl groups attached to silanes can be polymerized using thermal radical initiators such as azobis(isobuyronitrile) (AIBN) as evidenced by Itoh (page 5609, Experimental section, right column, radical polymerization paragraph). As such, it would have been obvious to have used any reaction these end groups are capable of, including radical polymerization initiated by thermal means.
Claims 18, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (Polymer (2012) volume 53, pages 5459-5468) as applied to claims 1-3, 6, and 13-17 above, and further in view of Xing (US 20150137172).
Regarding Claim 18,
Hu is silent on the use of photohydrosilylation catalysts. However, Xing teaches that any catalyst that can promote the hydrosilylation reaction may be used (Paragraph 33) and also notes the use of platinum bis(acetoacetate). This compound is present in US Patent 5,145,886 as cited by the applicant in the specification as a photoactive platinum catalyst for hydrosilylation reactions. As both Hu and Xing teach the use of platinum complexes to catalyze the hydrosilylation reaction, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that these catalysts would be interchangeable and would no doubt be aware that photoactivation of the catalyst would be preferrable in cases where elevated temperatures can cause degradation of a monomer or other reaction component. It would therefore have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have combined the catalyst of Xing with the reactants of Hu to obtain the predictable outcome of a hyperbranched polymerization reaction catalyzed by the use of a photoactive platinum catalyst with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claims 22-25
Hu is silent on the use of the polymer for optical applications. However, Xing teaches that the composition is useful as a curable coating for light emitting diode encapsulation (Paragraph 17). As organic light emitting diodes (OLED), quantum dot light emitting diodes (QD LED) and micro light emitting diodes are all species of the genus light emitting diode, it would logically follow that Xing teaches a curable coating that is useful for any species of the genus. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the compositions of Hu and Xing use similar components, with Hu offering alternative end group chemistries available for crosslinking as described above. This would serve as motivation to utilize the composition of Hu as an encapsulation layer. It would therefore have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have used the composition as taught by Hu as an encapsulant for an LED as taught by Xing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons.
On page 6, the applicant states that the 102 rejection for claim 1 should be withdrawn on the basis of the amendment to the claim. The examiner agrees and addresses this claim with a new grounds for rejection as stated in the current office action.
On page 7, the applicant states that the rejection of claims 15-25 should be withdrawn in light of the amendment to claim 1. However, a new grounds for rejection has been made and therefore, the rejection of these claims on that basis is maintained.
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 ADAM J BERRO whose telephone number is (703)756-1283. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1765
/JOHN M COONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights