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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/03/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment filed 09/03/2026 has been considered and is entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Amendments have changed the scope of the claims substantially and as such the prior rejections made over 35 USC 102 and 103 are withdrawn - as the prior art references do not particularly teach the required conductivity parameter.
After further search and consideration, the Examiner makes a new grounds of rejection as set forth in the body of the rejection below. If Applicant deems it amendable to further prosecution, the Examiner may be contacted for interview.
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.
As a matter of claim interpretation – the ion conductor of the instant claim 14 uses “comprising” language and as such does not limit the existence of other unrecited features, layers, polymers, monomers, or components. Any prior art instance that arrives at the structures claimed will be considered prior art even if additional components are present. See MPEP 2111.03.
Claim(s) 14, 15, 18-21, 24, 25, and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumann et al (US 20180182965 A1)
Regarding Claims 14, 15, 18-20, 24, 25, and 28, Schumann teaches a composition comprising at least one organic solvent, at least one conductive polymer that is preferably a cationic polymer, at least one fluorinated compound, and at least one polymeric anion where the polyanion comprises ionic and nonionic repeating units. Additionally, a layered structure comprising the composition and devices comprising such are disclosed (Abstract).
Schumann does not explicitly disclose an experimental example meeting the sum total of claim limitations.
These limitations are met by the general disclosure of the reference.
Schumann teaches a solvent from [0112]-[0121], where the organic solvent is selected from a siloxane such as polydimethylsiloxane, polysiloxane or derivatives thereof, perfluorinated solvents such perfluorinated ethers, and ethers such as PGME and dibutyl ether.
The conductive polymer (b) is discussed from [0122]-[0138] and is preferably a polythiophene compound conforming to general formulas (III) and (IV), where the polythiophene is also a polycationic species ([0137]-[0138]), though the reference does not show charge on the formula due to variability in moeity presented thereon.
The fluorinated compound (c) is discussed from [0140]-[0156], where the compound (c) is non-ionic, conforms to (IIa) or (IIb) formulas and may be a siloxane, amine, phosphine, or carbon compound. Preferably embodiments include fluorinated alkoxysilanes as discussed at [0152], or polymeric fluorinated compounds such as fluorinated homopolymers containing monomers such as but not limited to fluoroalkyl methacrylates and perfluorobutadiene.
The polymeric anion (d) is discussed from [0157]-[0183], where the polymeric anion is a copolymer such as a block copolymer or multiblock copolymer, wherein the polymer comprises non-ionic units and ionic units. Possible repeat arrangements of the units are presented in [1058], where A is the ionic repeating unit, B is a non-ionic unit, and C is a further non-ionic unit different than B.
PNG
media_image1.png
106
330
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The ionic unit A may be representative of a single type of unit or multiple types of repeat units.
Preferably, the number of ionic repeating units is smaller than the number of non-ionic repeating units ([0165]-[0166].
The ionic repeating units comprise acidic groups, such as carboxylates, sulfates, sulfonates, phosphates, phosphonates, and mixtures of 2 thereof ([0167]).
The non-ionic repeating units are derived from monomers such as siloxanes and arylene groups ([0168]).
Additives to the composition include binders, crosslinkers, viscosity modifiers, conductivity-increasing additives, antioxidants, and others discussed at [0184]-[0189].
The composition meets the limitations of the claims where:
The composition comprises polymer comprising a siloxane (the polymeric anion comprises siloxane subunits)
The anion is covalently bonded to the polymer having the siloxane ( the anionic monomers are covalently bound to the polymer backbone and the anionic groups are covalently bound to the rest of the monomer structure
The composition’s anionic component comprises a sulfonate (claim 18)
Being a polymer, the anionic component is multi-anionic (claim 25)
The composition comprises a cation (the cationic polythiophene)
This cationic polymer is a second polymer different from the first polymer and is a non-siloxane (Claim 15)
The cationic component is multi-cationic (claim 24)
As the polymeric anion comprises blocks of subunits that are non-ionic and blocks of subunits that are ionic, these blocks define domains in the composition where there are areas with differentiated flows of ions based on the abundance of non-ionic subunits versus ionic subunits, and where these ionic domains will be hydrophilic and the non-ionic domains will be hydrophobic - the composition is amphiphilic (claim 28).
The above composition is used in the production of a layered structure having a 1) a substrate, 2) a first layer superimposing at least a part of the surface wherein the layer comprises at the conductive polymer, fluorinated compound, and polymeric anion as discussed above regarding the composition. The layered structure and composition thereon (considered analogous to the claimed ion conductor) displays an electrical conductivity ranging from 10-6 S/cm to 10,000 S/cm, overlapping the claimed range at 10-6 S/cm to 10-2 S/cm (see MPEP 2144.05, in re Wertheim). Production of the layered structure is disclosed at [0218]-[0227] additional layers may be included in this structure such as hole transport layers. The structure is further used in an electronic device such as an electroluminescent device (claim 19) – such as a device described at [0103] ranging from an OLED, a display, an organic or hybrid organic solar cell, a field effect transistor, a touch screen or a thermoelectric generator, or a combination of two or more. A solar cell is a photoelectric device (claim 20).
Schumann ascribes improved performance and lifetime efficiency to devices using the composition and structure disclosed therein at [0010]-[0012] in part because of the omission of water from the components thereof. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date from the composition and devices made therefrom as taught by Schumann to have improved performance and lifetime efficiency over prior art embodiments not using the composition.
Regarding Claim 21, Schumann teaches the limitations of the claim as discussed above regarding claim 14.
Schumann however does not explicitly disclose an embodiment wherein the polyanion comprises bis(trifluoromethane)sulfonimide.
This limitation is met by the general disclosure of the reference.
The polyanion of Schumann comprises ionic subunits that are derived from acid-bearing moeities, such as sulfonate and sulfate. Elsewhere, when describing the hole-transport layer at [0225], ionic materials such as HTM-TFSI and Li-TFSI are included. These are ionic salts comprising a TFSI or bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide anion (which is another name for bis(trifluoromethane)sulfonimide - applicant’s specification uses TFSI to refer to this name at [0030]). The incorporation of the bis(trifluoromethane)sulfonimide anion into the polymer chain through a monomeric embodiment would result in the addition of another ionic embodiment to the polymer, attenuating the conductivity thereof. The substitution of another anion component into the polyanion embodiment is the combination of two anionic elements to be used in a conductive element to form a new, third anionic element to be used in a conductive element – their incorporation together logically flows from having been taught individually in the prior art (See MPEP 2144.06, in re Kerkhoven).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date in view of the disclosure of the reference by incorporating the TFSI anion into the polymeric anion component of the composition so as to arrive at a new polymeric anion embodiment to be used in the conductive composition.
Regarding claim 27, Schumann teaches the limitations of the claim as discussed above regarding claim 14.
Schumann however does not explicitly disclose a glass transition temperature.
This limitation is considered to be met by the broader disclosure of the reference, where a polymer embodiment meeting the limitations of the independent claim has been found. Properties, such as glass transition temperature, conductivity, resistance, and boiling point, are the results of structure - when a given structure has been found the properties therein must be present. The independent claim 14 requires a polymer that comprises siloxane (which is not the same as requiring a polysiloxane) wherein the polymer has at least one anionic or cationic component bonded thereto - this structure has been found (See MPEP 2112.01.I and II). The polyanion of Schumann comprises subunits that include siloxane subunits, which generally have low glass transition temperatures, and the ionic subunits and non-ionic subunits may be present in a ratio of 1:2 to 1:20 - establishing a polymer that is both more specifically described than the claimed polymer of claim 14 while also meeting the required structure, and also bears a significant amount of its subunit composition as a low-Tg polymeric embodiment.
Schumann ascribes improved performance and lifetime efficiency to devices using the composition and structure disclosed therein at [0010]-[0012]. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date from the composition and devices made therefrom as taught by Schumann to have improved performance and lifetime efficiency over prior art embodiments not using the composition.
Claim(s) 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumann et al (US 20180182965 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Maton et al (US 8084535 B2).
Regarding Claim 22 and 23, Schumann teaches the limitations of the claim as discussed above regarding claim 14.
Schumann however does not explicitly disclose a plasticizer. Schumann does disclose additives such as viscosity modifiers at [0184].
These limitations are met by Maton.
Maton disclsoses a method of making an organopolysiloxane polymer and composition containing such, wherein one or more organopolysiloxane polymers are reacted with one or more organic polymers in the presence of an extender or a plasticizer and then the reaction is quenched.
Further components of the composition of Maton include conductive fillers (Column 22 Lines 35-44) and other fillers discussed from
Plasticizers contemplated by the reference include those recited at Column 16 Line 57- Column 17 Line 10, such as propylene glycol. Herein, the plasticizer is used as a viscosity modifier during polymerization and in order to provide flexibility and toughness of a polymer composition (Column 3 Lines 1-35) in the final product, where the reference establishes that polymerization with the plasticizer in-situ avoids compounding issues such as a requirement for expensive high-shear mechanical mixing.
As established above regarding claim 14 – Schumann teaches a polyanionic embodiment that may comprise siloxane subunits - Schumann teaches a polysiloxane embodiment.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date by incorporating the propylene glycol plasticizer into the composition of Schumann by using it in-situ when generating the siloxane-bearing polymeric anion to result in a composition having increased flexibility and toughness and to ease the compounding of the conductive composition.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumann et al (US 20180182965 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Campbell et al (US 4523002).
Regarding Claim 26, Schumann teaches the limitations of the claim as discussed above regarding claim 14.
Schumann however does not explicitly disclose a zwitterionic salt or polymer thereof.
This limitation is met by Campbell.
Campbell disclsoses the synthesis of zwitterionic siloxane polymers, where these modifications impart improved adhesive ability to substrates (Column 1 to Column 2 Line 12). The zwitterionic modifications to the siloxanes include the provision of aminoalkyl sulfonates and aminoalkyl carboxylates as described at Column 3 Line 20 to Column 5 Line 10, where the treatment of an aminoalkane siloxane precursor with a sultone or lactone provides the zwitterionic species.
PNG
media_image2.png
76
314
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Schumann disclsoses that the polymeric anion embodiment discussed above regarding claim 14 comprises siloxane subunits and may also comprise sulfonate subunits - two subunit embodiments that bear structural similarity to the components of Campbell. The incorporation of the zwitterionic subunits of Campbell into the polymeric anion of Schumann would improve the adhesion of the polyanion and the resultant composition to a substrate and would be generally considered compatible with the ionic sulfonate subunits of the polymeric anion by nature of their shared sulfonate groups.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date by incorporating the zwitterionic siloxane sulfonate subunits of Campbell into the polymeric anion embodiment of Schumann in order to improve the adhesiveness of the composition of Schumann to a substrate it has been deposited onto.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW PRESTON TRAYWICK whose telephone number is (571)272-2982. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at 571-272-6297. 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.P.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738
