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 .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on 05/17/2023 is entered and acknowledged by the Examiner. Claims 1-15 have been canceled. New claims 16-35 were added and currently pending in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 05/17/2023 and 01/24/2025 are is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered by the examiner. An initialed copy accompanies this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 05/17/2023 have been considered.
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 25 and 27 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.
Claim 24 recites “said third solvent system is equivalent to said second solvent system”. It is unclear what equivalency between the third solvent system and the second solvent system is. Is the equivalency between the third solvent system and the second solvent in volume, material, or a combination thereof? To advance prosecution, the Examiner will assume the equivalency can be in volume or material.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 25 recites the broad recitation “said rigid conjugated polymer is a conjugated ladder polymer”, and the claim also recites “[said rigid conjugated polymer is] preferably poly(benzimidazobenzophenanthroline) (BBL)” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 27 recites the broad recitation “a mass ratio…from 0.01% to 99.99%”, and the claim also recites “[the mass ratio is] preferably 20-50%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16, 20, 23-26, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2006/0258802 A1 (hereinafter Janietz).
Initially, it should be noted that the Janietz reference is cited in the IDS filed on 01/24/2025.
With respect to claims 16 and 25, Janietz disclose a method for manufacturing a rigid-chain conjugated polymer dispersed in an aqueous or organic or aqueous-organic dispersion medium to form a dispersion solution containing rigid-chain conjugated polymer nanoparticles as recited in claim 16 (See [0001], [0009] and [0010]). Janietz disclose that the rigid-chain conjugated polymer particles includes poly(benzobismidazobenzo-phenanthroline) (BBL) (See [0016] and [0021]). The rigid-chain conjugated polymer particles of Janietz is structurally same as the claimed rigid-chain conjugated polymer, preferably BBL, recited in claim 25. Janietz disclose that the method comprises the steps: (a) preparing a solution of the polymer dissolved in a strong acid or in a liquid mixture comprising a Lewis acid (See [0009], [0022] and [0024]). The strong acid (claimed first solvent system) includes methane sulfonic acid, sulfuric acid, or a mixture thereof (See [0024]) and fulfills the claimed step a) as recited in claim 16. Janietz disclose that the polymer solution (a) is introduced into an aqueous surfactant solution (second solvent system) and sonicated to obtain a precipitate of polymer as required in step b) of claim 16 (See [0026], [0028] and [0034]). Janietz also disclose that the method includes a step of separating by centrifuge the disperse polymer (precipitant) from the liquid phase of the dispersion and washing the separated disperse polymer (See [0028], [0029], and [0034]). The separation step of Janietz meets the claimed step c) in claim 16. Janietz further disclose that the method includes a step of re-dispersing the washed polymer (precipitant) in an aqueous or organic surfactant solution (See [0028] and [0035]).
Janietz failed to disclose the nanoparticles of a rigid conjugated polymer having a dihedral angle from 0° to 20° as recited in claim 16.
However, Janietz discloses a method for manufacturing a dispersion solution comprising of poly(benzobismidazobenzo-phenanthroline) (BBL) polymer with the same chemical structure as recited in claim 25 and comprises the steps a) to d) as required in claim 16. Therefore, a skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation that the BBL polymer subjected to the same or substantially same method steps a) to d) would yield nanoparticles of a rigid conjugated polymer having a dihedral angle from 0° to 20° as recited in claim 16.
Regarding claim 20, Janietz discloses a diluent acid solution in dispersion medium (claimed second solvent system) including water and organic solvent including cyclohexanol (See [0023] and [0028]). The cyclohexanol is an alcohol as claimed.
Regarding claim 23, Janietz discloses that the re-dispersing solvent is an aqueous solution or organic surfactant solution (See [0028]). The aqueous solution includes cyclohexanol (See [0023]), which is an alcohol.
Regarding claim 24, Janietz discloses the aqueous solution or the organic surfactant solution are used as second solvent in claimed step of b) and third solvent in claim step d) (See claim 16 above; [0023], [0026], and [0028]).
Regarding claim 26, Janietz discloses a step to separate the polymer particles using centrifuging (See [0029] and [0034]).
Regarding claim 28, Janietz discloses a dispersion solution containing rigid-chain conjugated polymer nanoparticles (See [0031]). The rigid-chain conjugated polymer nanoparticles of Janietz, i.e., BBL (See [0033]), is structurally same as the claimed rigid conjugated polymer nanoparticles. Thus, the rigid-chain conjugated polymer nanoparticles of Janietz should have the same or substantially same dihedral angle as claimed.
Regarding claim 29, Janietz discloses the dispersion solution is used for forming thin layers by drop casting and spin coating (See [0032]). Therefore, the dispersion solution of Kota is a coating composition and fulfills the claimed conductive ink because a conductive ink composition is a coating composition.
Claims 17-19, 21-22, 27, and 30-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janietz (US 2006/0258802 A1) as applied to the above claims, and further in view of JP 2002146186 A (hereinafter Kota).
Janietz is relied upon as set forth above.
With respect to claims 17-18, Janietz disclose the rigid conjugated polymer (polyazole-based polymer) is dissolved in a strong acid of methane sulfonic acid, sulfuric acid or a mixture thereof (See [0018] and [0024]), but does not disclose the strong acid (claimed first solvent system) comprises a first acid and second acid as recited in the instant claims.
Kota discloses a polyazole-based polymer dissolved in a strong acid including methanesulfonic acid, sulfuric acid, trifluoroacetic acid or a mixture of two to improve solubility (See [0078] at unlabeled page 11). The methanesulfonic acid and sulfuric acid of Kota is chemically same as the claimed first acid as recited in claim 18. The trifluoroacetic acid of Kota meets the claimed second acid of 2,2,2- trifluoroacetic acid as recited in claim 18. The strong acid of Kota contains a mixture of acids having the same or substantially same chemical structure as the claimed first acid and second acid. Therefore, the mixture of acids of Kota having properties as recited in claim 17.
It would have been obvious for a skilled artisan at the time the invention was filed to dissolve the polyazole-based polymer of Janietz with an acid mixture of Kota, i.e., sulfuric acid and trifluoroacetic acid, in order to improve solubility.
Regarding claim 19, Janietz and Kota did not disclose the volume ratio of the first acid to second acid is from 95:5 to 5:95. However, It would have been within the purview of a skilled artisan at the time invention was filed to immediately envision 50:50 volume ratio mixture of the first acid and second acid. This volume ratio (50:50) is within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 21, Janietz discloses a diluent acid solution in an aqueous medium (claimed second solvent system) including water and organic solvent miscible with water including an alcohol, i.e., cyclohexanol (See [0023] and [0028]), but does not disclose a specific alcohol as claimed. Kota discloses using water, methanol or acetone when strong acid is used (See [0076] at unlabeled page 11). It would have been obvious to substitute the alcohol of Janietz with a specific methanol alcohol of Kato and the results would have been predictable because the substitution of one water-miscible alcohol for another is predictable and obvious.
Regarding claim 22, the instant claim volume of TFA in the ratio includes a lower limit of zero. As such, TFA is an optional component and second solvent system only requires alcohol. Kota discloses a second solvent system comprises alcohol (See claim 21 above).
Regarding claim 27, Janietz does not disclose a polymeric cation. However, Kota discloses a polyazole-based polymer composition comprises a mixture of ionic group-containing polyazole-based polymer and a polyazole-based polymer not containing an ionic group (See Abstract). The ionic group-containing polyazole-based polymer having an amine ionic group (See [0038]). The amine ionic group-containing polyazole-based polymer is a polymeric cation. Kota discloses a content of the polyazole-based polymer not containing an ionic group (conjugated polymer) is 1-99 wt% in order to improve moldability and mechanical properties (See [0076 at unlabeled page 11). The content of ionic group-containing polyazole-based polymer be would 1-99 wt% based on the total weight of the two polymers. It would have been obvious for a skilled artisan at the time the invention was filed to incorporate 1-99 wt% of ionic group-containing polyazole-based polymer (polymeric cation) of Kato into the polyazole-based polymer of Janietz in order to improve moldability and mechanical properties.
Regarding claim 30, Janietz discloses the method comprises steps a) to d) (See claim 16 above). Janietz further discloses a re-dispersion in tetrahydrofuran/surfactant solution (See [0035]). The surfactant solution of Janietz fulfills the claimed third solvent system. The additional of tetrahydrofuran to the surfactant solution would dilute the surfactant solution and fulfills the claimed fourth solvent system in step e) to obtain a film forming composition (ink composition).
Janietz failed to disclose a step f) of adding an n-type polymeric cation to the film forming composition (ink composition).
However, Kota discloses film forming composition comprises a mixture of ionic group-containing polyazole-based polymer and a polyazole-based polymer not containing an ionic group (See Abstract). The ionic group-containing polyazole-based polymer having an amine ionic group (See [0038]). The amine ionic group-containing polyazole-based polymer is an n-type polymeric cation.
It would have been obvious for a skilled artisan at the time the invention was filed to add the ionic group-containing polyazole-based polymer (n-type polymeric cation) of Kato into the polyazole-based polymer not containing ionic group film forming composition (ink composition) of Janietz in order to improve moldability and mechanical properties as suggested (See claim 27 above).
With respect to claims 31 and 32, Janietz disclose the rigid conjugated polymer (polyazole-based polymer) is dissolved in a strong acid of methane sulfonic acid, sulfuric acid or a mixture thereof (See [0018] and [0024]), but does not disclose the strong acid (claimed first solvent system) comprises a first acid and second acid as recited in the instant claims.
Kota discloses a polyazole-based polymer dissolved in a strong acid including methanesulfonic acid, sulfuric acid, trifluoroacetic acid or a mixture of two to improve solubility (See [0078] at unlabeled page 11). The methanesulfonic acid and sulfuric acid of Kota is chemically same as the claimed first acid as recited in claim 32. The trifluoroacetic acid of Kota meets the claimed second acid of 2,2,2- trifluoroacetic acid as recited in claim 32. The strong acid of Kota contains a mixture of acids having the same or substantially same chemical structure as the claimed first acid and second acid. Therefore, the mixture of acids of Kota having properties as recited in claim 31.
It would have been obvious for a skilled artisan at the time the invention was filed to dissolve the polyazole-based polymer of Janietz with an acid mixture of Kota, i.e., sulfuric acid and trifluoroacetic acid, in order to improve solubility.
Regarding claim 33, Janietz and Kota did not disclose the volume ratio of the first acid to second acid is from 95:5 to 5:95. However, It would have been within the purview of a skilled artisan at the time invention was filed to immediately envision 50:50 volume ratio mixture of the first acid and second acid. This volume ratio (50:50) is within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 34, Janietz discloses a dispersion solution containing rigid-chain conjugated polymer nanoparticles (See [0031]). The rigid-chain conjugated polymer nanoparticles of Janietz, i.e., BBL (See [0033]), is structurally same as the claimed rigid conjugated polymer nanoparticles. Thus, the rigid-chain conjugated polymer nanoparticles of Janietz should have the same or substantially same dihedral angle as claimed.
Regarding claim 35, Janietz discloses the dispersion solution is used for forming thin layers by drop casting and spin coating (See [0032]). Therefore, the dispersion solution of Kota is a coating composition and fulfills the claimed conductive ink because a conductive ink composition is a coating composition.
In view of the foregoing, the above claims have failed to patentably distinguish over the applied art.
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 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHANH TUAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. 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.
/KHANH T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761