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 Amendment
The previous 112 rejection and objections has been overcome by the amendment supported by the original disclosure.
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 previous restriction and 103 rejections have been maintained and repeated.
Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the structures on page 11 are illegible. . Correction is recommended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
claims 5-8 and 13-19 is (are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN109912784, Wu1) in view of Wu et al. (CN109942798, Wu2)
As to claims 5-8 and 13-19, Wu1 (abs., examples, claims, ) discloses a process of producing a copolymer for FET:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein Ar embraces a thiophene comonomer moiety. The copolymer is produced via a commoner embraces species (meets the claimed M2)
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
comprising semifluoroalkyl side chains; the exemplary polymerization synthetic parameters (Stille/Suzuki coupling polymerization mechanism, monomer functional terminals, catalyst, polymerization temperature/time, monomers and/or catalyst ratio, inert gas, etc. that meet the claimed ones except the claimed siloxane dovetail side chain substituted diketopyrrolopyrrole:
PNG
media_image4.png
409
835
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Wu1 is silent on the claimed siloxane dovetail side chain substituted diketopyrrolopyrrole.
In the same area of endeavor of producing a DPP based copolymer for FET application, Wu2 (abs., examples, claims, schemes) discloses a process of producing a copolymer for FET:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein Ar embraces a thiophene comonomer moiety. The copolymer is produced via a
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
comprising tail side siloxane side chains via a commoner embraces species that meets the claimed M1; the exemplary polymerization synthetic parameters (Stille/Suzuki coupling polymerization mechanism, monomer functional terminals, catalyst, polymerization temperature/time, monomer and/or catalyst ratio, inert gas, etc.) meet the claimed ones:
PNG
media_image6.png
743
852
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The siloxane side chains improve solubility, steric hinderance issue, mobility of TFT devices, transistor performance, etc.
Therefore, as to claims 5-8 and 13-19, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the copolymer disclosed by Wu1 and added the siloxane dovetail side chain substituted diketopyrrolopyrrole comonomer in view of Wu2 with the discloses comonomer, and/or catalyst ratio, because the resultant terpolymer would yield improved solubility, steric hinderance issue, mobility of TFT devices, transistor performance, etc. The resultant copolymer would inherently meet the claimed copolymer, and the process would inherently meet the claimed polymerization synthetic parameters. It has been found that where claimed ranges overlap ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists - see MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
The argument for allowance of amended claims has been fully considered but not persuasive.
The examiner disagrees with applicant’s argument (15:2-16:1) of Wu1 and Wu2 have different purpose of invention and fundamentally opposed, in particular regarding “molecular stacking” and “steric hindrance”, so they cannot be combined to meet the claim. Wu2 does not purse steric hindrance, as obviously recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, because tail side siloxane side chains of Wu2 are bulky and would actually reduce the steric hindrance of the polymer backbone and reduce inter chain hindrance, as taught by Wu2. Citing Mei, etc. (2:1 of the machine translation), Wu2 teaches the insulating and bulky properties of long-chain branched alkyl chains (Wu2’s case) hinder intermolecular charge transport, affecting device performance. Wu2 further teaches although moving the branch point away from the main chain can reduce the steric hindrance, the solubility-promoting effect will also be weakened. Siloxane chains can simultaneously address the solubility and steric hindrance issues. With siloxane as the terminal functional group, solubility can be maintained even when the terminal functional group is far from the mainchain. Thus, Wu1 and Wu2 do not teach away from each other and this application.
Applicant's argument of unexpected results (16:2-4) is unpersuasive and insufficient. Evidence of unexpected results must be factually supported by an appropriate affidavit of declaration. See MPEP § 716.01(c). Unexpected results must, in actuality, be unexpected. Unexpected results must be compared with the closest art, in this particular case, Wu1. Unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the claims. The applicant must show unexpected results over the entire claimed range to support unexpected results for the entire range and generic structures. Therefore, Applicant should compare several compositions containing claimed components of A, B, and C in amounts at several data points over the claimed range to several compositions containing the same claimed components of A, B, and C in amounts at several data points outside of the claimed range, including data points close to and far from the claimed range.
The applicant argued (17:2) non-trivial design decision to modify Wu1 with Wu2. The examiner disagrees. Wu1 and Wu2 teaches the same Stille/Suzuki coupling polymerization method for producing donor-acceptor copolymers used or FETs. The 2 references are of the same field of endeavor and deal with the same/similar comonomers, catalysts, polymerization parameters. Hence, one skilled in the art would in fact have a reasonable expectation of success of simply controlling the polymerization parameters of the reactants in a similar system. Such a process is considered widely routine and with an expected result. Wu2 teaches the motivation of improving solubility, steric hinderance issue, mobility of TFT devices, transistor performance. Wu1 and Wu2 teaches the comonomers species that meet the claimed one for producing the claimed copolymer. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the copolymer disclosed by Wu1 and added the siloxane dovetail side chain substituted diketopyrrolopyrrole comonomer in view of Wu2 with the discloses comonomer, and/or catalyst ratio.
Therefore, as to claims 5-8 and 13-19, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the copolymer disclosed by Wu1 and added the siloxane dovetail side chain substituted diketopyrrolopyrrole comonomer in view of Wu2 with the discloses comonomer, and/or catalyst ratio, because the resultant terpolymer would yield improved solubility, steric hinderance issue, mobility of TFT devices, transistor performance, etc. The resultant copolymer would inherently meet the claimed copolymer, and the process would inherently meet the claimed polymerization synthetic parameters. It has been found that where claimed ranges overlap ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists - see MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, the previous restriction and 103 rejections have been maintained and repeated.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7378. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs. 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached on 571.572.1302. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHANE FANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766