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 .
Drawings
The Drawings filed 23 October 2023 are approved by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner and an initialed copy is attached.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of the certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Citation Notation
The following citations are made for the convenience of the reader:
Citations to PG publications are made to paragraph number under the ¶ format. Citations to other publications made under the format “ col 1/2” or pp 1 are directed to column and line number or to a page - whichever is appropriate. It is noted that any reference to a figure or a table is also directed to any accompanying text in the specification or the document. Notwithstanding those citations, the reference(s) is (are) relied upon for the teachings as a whole.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: the percent loading amount should indicate the proper relative total amount of the components. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Onishi (JP-2011108425-A, a machine translation is provided and referenced from hereon).
Claims 1-5: Onishi discloses a composition or paste comprising a PEDOT conductive material, various p-dopants such as LiTSFI and various organic solvents such as alcohols (abs, pg. 8-11, examples and Table 1 with accompanying text).
Claim 7 and 8: Onishi discloses various loading amounts of the dopants such as a preferred value of 35% (pg. 8-11, examples and Table 1 with accompanying text).
Claim(s) 1-3, 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Endo (US-20190330485-A1).
Claims 1-3 and 5: Endo discloses a composition comprising a PEDOT conductive material, metal oxide particles, various p-dopants such as bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide and various organic solvents such as alcohols (abs, ¶ 11-47, 228-264, 32-350, 394, examples and Tables 1-2 with accompanying text).
Claim 7: Endo discloses various loading amounts of the dopants such as a 25-55% (¶228-264 and examples).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi.
The Onishi reference discloses the claimed invention with the feature of a 2-propanol solvent but does not disclose the composition with the 2-propanol feature with enough specificity to anticipate the claimed invention. Nevertheless, given that Onishi discloses the 2-propanol as a suitable solvent (pg. 9), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the chemical art at the time of the invention to utilize any of the taught components since Onishi teaches each one. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pursue the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success since the reference is directed to a similar field of endeavor. It is also noted that the fact that many components are disclosed would not have made any of them, such as the 2-propanol, less obvious. Here, Onishi discloses each of the claimed components and there is no evidence nor teaching that the selection of the claimed components would be repugnant to a skilled artisan. Further, obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
Claim(s) 4, 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo.
Claims 4 and 6: The Endo reference discloses the claimed invention with the bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide and 2-propanol components but does not disclose the composition with the bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide and 2-propanol components with enough specificity to anticipate the claimed invention. Nevertheless, given that Endo discloses bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide as a suitable dopant and 2-propanol as a suitable solvent (pg. 8-10), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the chemical art at the time of the invention to utilize any of the taught components since Endo teaches each one. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pursue the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success since the reference is directed to a similar field of endeavor. It is also noted that the fact that many components are disclosed would not have made any of them, such as bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide and 2-propanol, less obvious. Here, Endo discloses each of the claimed components and there is no evidence nor teaching that the selection of the claimed components would be repugnant to a skilled artisan. Further, obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
The Endo reference discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the claimed loading range. Given that the Endo reference discloses a loading range that overlaps with the presently claimed range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize any of the taught percentages, including those presently claimed, to obtain a suitable composition. According to MPEP 2131.03 and MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the portion of the prior art's range which is within the range of applicant's claims because it has been held to be obvious to select a value in a known range by optimization for the best results. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the loading variables with the benefit gain of enhancing the conductivity of the composition. Further, obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success and there is no evidence nor teaching that the selection or optimization of the claimed components would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi or Endo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gotanda (cited in the IDS), Yoon (cited in the IDS), Meng (cited in the IDS) or Seike (US-20120211075-A1).
The Onishi or Endo reference discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the manufacturing feature of an electronic device via stacking/laminating. It is noted that Onishi or Endo discloses employing known processes to manufacture known electronic devices (Onishi: pg. 1-4 and examples or Endo: ¶228, 369-391 and examples). In an analogous art, the Gotanda, Yoon, Meng or Seike reference discloses that methods of manufacturing electronic devices via stacking/laminating electrode, photelectric, hole transporting and electrode layers on a substrate is well known in the art (Gotanda: abs, ¶23, 27-34, 49, 51, 61 and Figs 1 and 3 with accompanying text; Yoon: abs, Fig 1 with accompanying text; Meng: abs, ¶35-49, 53-56, examples; Seike: abs, Figs 1 and 2 with accompanying text). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known processes and end-products of Gotanda, Yoon, Meng or Seike to the teachings of Onishi or Endo would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the cited references shows the ability to apply such features into similar systems, methods and compositions. See MPEP 2143. Further, it is noted that obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success and there is no evidence nor teaching that the application and end-product of Gotanda, Yoon, Meng or Seike would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuthers can be reached at 571.272.7026. 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.
/TRI V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764