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 amendment to claims filed on 4/23/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1 and 10 are amended. Currently, claims 1-26 are pending in the application with claims 20-26 being withdrawn from consideration.
Previous 112 rejection is withdrawn in view of the above amendment and Applicant’s arguments are persuasive to overcome the rejection.
Previous prior art rejections are withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under a new ground of rejection below.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8, 10-11, 15, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pegington et al. (US 2018/0097183).
Regarding claim 1, Pegington et al. discloses a hole transporting polymer comprising a copolymer of a repeat unit of formula (I) conjugated with one or more co-repeating units (see [0152] and [0084]), wherein the co-repeating units include polycyclic arylene repeating units substituted with solubilizing groups such as alkoxy (see [0084]) and the molar percentage of repeat units of formula (I) in the range of 1-99 mol % (see [0068]). The repeating unit of formula (I) of Pegington et al. is an aromatic amine moiety (see [0012]). The polycyclic arylene repeating unit substituted with solubilizing groups of Pegington et al. is corresponded to the claimed wettable monomers comprising a polycyclic aromatic moiety. As such, Pegington et al. discloses a hole transport polymer (or a copolymer) comprising:
one or more wettable monomers comprising a polycyclic aromatic moiety (or co-repeating units including polycyclic arylene repeating units substituted with solubilizing groups); and
a second monomer comprising an aromatic amine moiety (or repeating unit of formula (I));
wherein the molar percentage of the one or more wettable monomers (or polycyclic arylene) is found to be 99-1 mol% (or 100% minus the molar percentage of the repeating unit of formula (I)).
Pegington et al. does not teach the molar percentage of the one or more wettable monomers (or substituted polycyclic arylenes) to be about 4 mol% to about 20mol%.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of about 80-99 mol% of second monomer (or repeating unit of formula (I)) in the range of 1-99 mol% of Pegington et al. such that the molar percentage of the one or more wettable monomers is found to be 1-20 mol%, because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 4, Pegington et al. discloses a hole transport polymer as in claim 1 above, and teaches the aromatic amine moiety (or repeat unit of formula (I)) comprises at least a fluorene monomer (see formula (I) shown in paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 5, Pegington et al. discloses a hole transport polymer as in claim 4 above, and teaches the aromatic amine moiety (or repeat unit of formula (I)) comprises at least one of an alkyl group (see [0014]), an oligoalkyl group (see [0014]), an oligooxy group (see C1-20 alkyl group, wherein one or more non-adjacent C atoms may be replaced with O, [0014]), an amine group (see NR5 and R5 is H), and a halogen (see [0014] and examples).
Regarding claim 6, Pegington et al. discloses a hole transport polymer as in claim 4 above, and teaches the fluorene monomer is selected from the group comprising dibromofluorene (see examples).
Regarding claim 8, Pegington et al. discloses a hole transport polymer as in claim 1 above, and teaches using more than one wettable monomers (or co-repeat units of arylene repeat units, [0068], [0084]), wherein the wettable monomers (or the arylene repeat units) comprises fluorene monomer having formula (IV) of dialkylflourene (see formula (IV) and a having a side chain comprising oligoalky group (or C1-20 alkyl), an amine group (or C atoms replace with N), or a halogen (F or Br, see [0085-0101] and examples).
Pegington et al. does not explicitly teach using a second wettable fluorene monomer in addition to the one or more wettable monomers, wherein the second wettable fluorene monomer has a side chain comprising at least one of an amide group, a phosphine group, an oligoalkyl group, a halogen, and an amine group.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a second wettable fluorene monomer in addition to the one or more wettable monomers, wherein the second wettable monomer has a side chain comprising oligoalky group, an amine group or a halogen, because Pegington et al. explicitly teaches doing so, e.g. teaching using more than one co-repeat units and the co-repeat units including such fluorene.
Regarding claim 10, Pegington et al. discloses a hole transport polymer as in claim 1 above, and teaches the aromatic amine moiety (or repeat unit of Formula (I)) with Ar2 is a substituted phenyl ([0021]) with a substituent of NR5 aniline or a derivative thereof.
Regarding claim 11, Pegington et al. discloses a hole transport polymer as in claim 1 above, and teaches the polymer comprising one or more repeat units of formula (I) (see [0012]).
Peg one or more second aromatic amine moieties selected from the group comprising carbazoles, derivatives of carbazoles, fluorenes, derivatives of fluorenes, and combinations thereof.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polymer of Pegington et al. by using a second aromatic amine moieties comprising fluorenes (or a second repeat unit having formula (I)), because Pegington et al. explicitly teaches using more than one repeat units of formula (I) in the polymer.
Regarding claim 15, Pegington et al. discloses a hole transport polymer as in claim 1 above, and teaches a highest occupied molecular orbital energy (HOMO) in the range 4.8-5.5eV, or optionally 5.1-5.3eV, or in the claimed range of about -5.4 eV to about -4.9 eV.
Regarding claim 18, Pegington et al. discloses a hole transport polymer as in claim 1 above, and exemplifies the second monomer (or repeat units of formula (I)) to be hydrophobic (or having alkyl groups as the substituents, see [0067]).
Regarding claim 19, Pegington et al. discloses a hole transport polymer having all the structural limitation as in claim 1 above. The instant claim describing how to synthesized the polymer is a process limitation that does not further define the structure of the polymer. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2113. Regardless how the hole transport polymer is synthesized, by a Buchwald-Hartwig cross coupling reaction or an Ullmann reaction or by other methods/reactions, in the end the hole transport polymer is still a hole transport polymer.
Claim(s) 2-3, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pegington et al. (US 2018/0097183) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Lee et al. (“Enhanced photovoltaic performance of quasi-solid-state dye-sensitized solar cells via incorporating quaternized ammonium iodide-containing conjugated polymer into PEO gel electrolytes”).
Regarding claims 2-3, Pegington et al. discloses a hole transporting polymer as in claim 1 above, and teaches the one or more wettable monomer (or arylene repeat unit of fluorenes) comprises alkoxy group (see [0084, [0096]).
Pegington et al. does not explicitly discloses the alkoxy to be one oligooxy ground and an alkyl side chain comprising four or fewer carbon atoms such as methoxyethoxy(ethyl) group.
Lee et al. shows a fluorene being substituted with an alkoxy such as methoxyethoxy(ethyl) group (see Scheme 1).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polymer of Pegington et al. by using the one or more wettable monomer (or the fluorene) comprising oligooxy group and an alkyl side chain comprising four or fewer carbon atoms such as methoxyethoxy(ethyl) group as taught by Lee et al., because Pegington et al. explicitly suggests using alkoxy and Lee et al. teaches using such fluorene unit would provide a hole transport polymer (or polymer electrolytes) exhibiting lower electrochemical resistances, superior photovoltaic properties and improved PV stabilities (see abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Pegington et al. discloses a hole transport polymer as in claim 4 above, and teaches the aromatic amine moiety is a repeat unit including formula (I) comprising a fluorene (see [0068], [0084], and [0152]).
Pegington et al. does not teach the aromatic amine moiety (or the repeat units) is a carbazole monomer selected from the group comprising dibromocarbazole.
Lee et al. teaches a repeat unit including a fluorene monomer and a carbazole monomer of dibromocarbazole monomer (see Scheme 1).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polymer of Pegington et al. by incorporating a carbazole of dibromocarbazole monomer into the aromatic amine moiety (or the repeat units) as taught by Lee et al., because Lee et al. teaches using such carbazole unit would provide a hole transport polymer (or polymer electrolytes) exhibiting lower electrochemical resistances, superior photovoltaic properties and improved PV stabilities (see abstract).
Alternatively in regards to claim 11, Pegington et al. discloses a hole transport polymer as in claim 4 above, and teaches the aromatic amine moiety is a repeat unit including formula (I) comprising a fluorene (see [0068], [0084], and [0152]).
Pegington et al. does not teach including one or more second aromatic moieties selected from carbazoles, derivatives of carbazoles, fluorenes, derivatives of fluorenes and combination thereof.
Lee et al. teaches a repeat unit including a fluorene monomer and a carbazole monomer of dibromocarbazole monomer (see Scheme 1).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polymer of Pegington et al. by incorporating a carbazoles as a second aromatic moiety in addition to the aromatic amine moiety of fluorene monomer as taught by Lee et al., because Lee et al. teaches using such combination of moieties (or units) would provide a hole transport polymer (or polymer electrolytes) exhibiting lower electrochemical resistances, superior photovoltaic properties and improved PV stabilities (see abstract).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pegington et al. (US 2018/0097183) as applied to claim 8 above, in view of Kuma et al. (“Recent progress in bifacial perovskite solar cells”)
Regarding claim 9, Pegington et al. discloses a hole transport polymer as in claim 8 above, wherein Pegington et al. teaches using C1-20 alkyl group with one or more C atoms replaced with N (or nitrogen, see [0085-0101]).
Pegington et al. does not teach the second wettable fluorene monomer is a dimethylaminopropylfluorene monomer.
Kumar et al. teaches using dimethylaminopropylfluorene monomer [or 3,3′-(2,7-dibromo-9H-fluorene-9,9-diyl) bis(N,N-dimethylpropan-1-amine - FN-Br] in the hole transporting material would shift the Fermi level and increase the efficiency (see page 10, right column).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the dimethylaminopropylfluorene monomer [or 3,3′-(2,7-dibromo-9H-fluorene-9,9-diyl) bis(N,N-dimethylpropan-1-amine - FN-Br] taught by Kumar et al. as the second wettable fluorene, because Pegington et al. explicitly teaches using a fluorene with substituents of C6 alkyl group with one C atom being replaced with N and Kumar teaches a dimethylaminopropylfluorene (or FN-Br), which is a fluorene with substituents of C6 alkyl group with one C atom being replaced with N, would shift the Fermi level and increase the efficiency.
Claim(s) 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pegington et al. (US 2018/0097183) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Luizys et al. (“Branched Methoxydiphenylamine-substituted Carbazole Derivatives for Efficient Perovskite Solar Cells: Bigger is Not Always Better”).
Regarding claims 12-13, Peginton et al. discloses a hole transport polymer as in claim 1 above.
Pegington et al. does not teach a decomposition temperature of greater than about 350 °C and greater than about 390 °C.
Luizys et al. teaches a hole transporting polymer having a decomposition temperature of greater than about 350 °C and greater than about 390 °C (see Tdec in table 1) would provide thermally stable compound (see page 7021).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the hole transport polymer of Pegington et al. to have a decomposition temperature of greater than about 350 °C and greater than about 390 °C to provide a thermally stable hole transport polymer as taught by Luizys et al.
Regarding claim 14, Pegington et al. discloses a hole transport polymer as in claim 1 above, wherein Pegington et al. teaches increasing glass transition temperature (Tg, see [0084]).
Pegington et al. does not discloses the hole transport polymer having a glass transition temperature of greater than about 100oC.
Luizys et al. teaches a hole transport polymer having a glass transition temperature of greater than about 100oC (see table 1) so that it is advantageous to use fully amorphous compounds as there is no risk of direct film crystallization in the photovoltaic devices (see page 7021, right column).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the hole transport polymer of Pegington et al. to have a glass transition temperature of greater than about 100oC as taught by Luizys et al.; because Pegington et al. explicitly suggests increasing glass transition temperature, and Luizys et al. teaches such glass transition temperature would be advantageous so that fully amorphous compound can be used as there is no risk of direct film crystallization in photovoltaic devices.
Regarding claim 16, Pegington et al. discloses a hole transporting polymer as in claim 1 above.
Pegington et al. does not discloses a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital energy of about -2.5eV to about -2.0 eV.
Luizys et al. teaches the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital energy of a hole transport polymer to be about -2.5 eV to about -2.0eV (see Eea in table 1) to provide photoelectric properties of HOMO-LUMO alignment of the hole transport material (see table 1 and page 7022), e.g. to function as a hole transporting material.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the hole transport polymer of Pegington et al. to have the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital energy of about -2.5eV to about -2.0eV as taught by Luizys et al.; because Luizys et al. teaches such energy of the polymer would provide a HOMO-LUMO level alignment of the hole transporting material, and Pegington et al. explicitly teaches the polymer functions as a hole transport polymer.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pegington et al. (US 2018/0097183) as applied to claim 1, in view Lunt et al. (US 2020/0303667).
Regarding claim 17, Pegington et al. discloses a hole transport polymer as in claim 1 above.
Pegington et al. does not teaches a water contact angle greater than about 80 degrees.
Lunt et al. teaches adjusting and tuning an organic layer to have water angle of greater than about 80 degrees to increase the lifetimes of the layer/device (see [0061], [0066-0070]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted and tuned the hole transport polymer to have water contact angle greater than about 80 degrees to increase lifetimes of the layer/device as taught by Lunt et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues Luizys and Peng do not anticipate the claimed invention. However, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new ground of rejection. See the rejection above.
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 THANH-TRUC TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-6594. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 6:00pm.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at 5712721307. 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.
THANH-TRUC TRINH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/THANH TRUC TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights