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 .
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 4 and 19 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 4 recites the limitation “the plural nanowebs” in ln 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
While not a suggestion of claim language, in the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation “the plural nanodomains and the plural nanowebs” is treated as ‘plural nanodomains and plural nanowebs’.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the plural nanowebs” in ln 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
While not a suggestion of claim language, in the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation “the plural nanodomains and the plural nanowebs” is treated as ‘plural nanodomains and plural nanowebs’.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 instant claims contain the transitional phrase “comprising”. Per MPEP 2111.03 ‘The transitional term “comprising”, which is synonymous with “including,” “containing,” or “characterized by,” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps'. This open-ended definition has been taken into consideration in the following rejections.
Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Structures and Materials in Stretchable Electroluminescent Devices” by Yin et al. (hereinafter Yin).
Regarding claim 1, Yin discloses a stretchable light emitting mixed composition (abstract), comprising:
a light emitting polymer comprising one of a red light emitting polymer, a green light emitting polymer and a blue light emitting polymer (page 8, para 5 and para below Table 3 on page 16);
an elastomer (page 21, para 1); and
a solvent (page 22, para 2),
wherein, in the stretchable light emitting mixed composition, the light emitting polymer is phase-separated from the elastomer (page 21, para 1) into a plurality of domains (page 22, para 4) but does not expressly disclose the domains as nanodomains.
However, the reference does teach an overlapping composition and that the domains are a result of differences between the elastomer and the polymer, as discussed above. Yin further teaches against large domain sizes (page 22, para 4), which suggests that small domain sizes such as nanodomains are preferable. It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the overlapping composition would comprise the domains as nanodomains to positively affect doping efficacy (page 22, para 4).
Regarding claim 2, Yin discloses the stretchable light emitting mixed composition according to claim 1, wherein the light emitting polymer is phase-separated from the elastomer due to differences between the polymer and elastomer (page 21, para 1) but is silent regarding a difference between a surface energy of the light emitting polymer and a surface energy of the elastomer. However on page 21, para 1, the polymer is a polyfluorene (PF), which has a critical surface energy of about 36.6 dyne/cm. The elastomer is a polybutyl acrylate (PBA), which has a critical surface energy of about 28 to 31 dyne/cm or poly(isoprene) (PI), which as a critical surface energy of about 32.3 to 34 dyne/cm. All surface energies are retrieved from Google text searches. There is a difference between the surface energy of the polymer and the surface energy of the elastomers. The reference expressly states that the phase separation is due to differences between the polymer and elastomers. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that one of those differences may be differences in surface energies, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 3, Yin discloses the stretchable light emitting mixed composition according to claim 1, wherein a degree of phase separation is adjusted depending upon a mixing ratio (by controlling the ratio) of the light emitting polymer to the elastomer (page 21, para 1).
Regarding claim 4, Yin discloses the stretchable light emitting mixed composition according to claim 1, wherein the light emitting polymer is phase-separated into plural nanodomains and plural nanowebs (connected domains) depending upon a mixing ratio (controlling the ratio) of the light emitting polymer to the elastomer (page 21, para 1), and
the plural nanodomains and the plural nanowebs are connected to each other forming a continuous pathway (page 22, para 4).
This rejection is based on the interpretation set forth in para #3, above.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Yin discloses the stretchable light emitting mixed composition according to claim 1, wherein the light emitting polymer and the elastomer are mixed in a weight ratio of 2.4:1 (12:5) for PF:PBA or 3.6:1 (18:5) for PF:PI (page 21, para 1), which both fall within the instantly claimed range of 19:1 to 1:9. However, this calculation if for PF, the blue light emitting polymer and is silent regarding the red light and green light emitting polymers.
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the ratio between the red emitting polymer and elastomer and the green emitting polymer and elastomer to optimize the desired combination of optical and mechanical properties under high strain (page 21, para 1) for a variety of color combinations including white light emission.
Regarding claim 7, Yin discloses the stretchable light emitting mixed composition according to claim 1, wherein the blue light emitting polymer (polyfluorene, PF) and the elastomer are mixed in a weight ratio of 2.4:1 (12:5) for PF:PBA or 3.6:1 (18:5) for PF:PI (page 21, para 1), which both fall within the instantly claimed range of 19:1 to 1:9.
Regarding claim 8, Yin discloses the stretchable light emitting mixed composition according to claim 1, wherein the light emitting polymer is nonpolar (PF, page 21, para 1).
Regarding claim 9, Yin discloses the stretchable light emitting mixed composition according to claim 1, wherein the elastomer is nonpolar (polyisoprene, PBA, page 21, para 1, or PDMS, Table 3).
Regarding claim 10, Yin discloses the stretchable light emitting mixed composition according to claim 1, wherein, in an alternate embodiment, the
elastomer is one selected from a group comprising a Styrene-Ethylene-Butylene-Styrene(SEBS) block copolymer (Table 3).
Regarding claim 11, Yin discloses the stretchable light emitting mixed composition according to claim 1, wherein the light emitting polymer has a conjugation structure (page 20, para 2).
Regarding claim 12, Yin discloses the stretchable light emitting mixed composition according to claim 1, wherein the red light emitting polymer is a red-light emitting PPV-based copolymer (page 19, para 1).
Regarding claim 14, Yin discloses the stretchable light emitting mixed composition according to claim 1, wherein the blue light emitting polymer is poly(9,9-di-n-octylfluorenyl-2,7-diyl) (PFO) (page 6, below Table 1) or a polyfluorene copolymer (PF, page 21, para 1).
Regarding claim 15, Yin discloses a stretchable light emitting mixed film prepared using the stretchable light emitting mixed composition according to claim 1,
wherein, in the stretchable light emitting mixed composition, the light emitting polymer is phase-separated from the elastomer into a plurality of domains (page 21, para 1). However, the reference does not expressly recite the domains as nanodomains.
However, Yin does teach an overlapping composition and that the domains are a result of differences between the elastomer and the polymer, as discussed above. Yin further teaches against large domain sizes (page 22, para 4), which suggests that small domain sizes such as nanodomains are preferable. It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the overlapping composition would comprise the domains as nanodomains to positively affect doping efficacy (page 22, para 4).
Regarding claim 16, Yin discloses the stretchable light emitting mixed film according to claim 15, wherein when the stretchable light emitting mixed film is strained, a structure of the light emitting polymer is preserved and the elastomer is deformed (page 24, para 2).
Regarding claim 17, Yin discloses the stretchable light emitting mixed film according to claim 15, wherein the stretchable light emitting mixed film has a thickness of ≥ 100 nm (page 4, para 1), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 50 nm to 130 nm. See MPEP 2144.05(I), which states that ‘In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists’.
Regarding claim 18, Yin discloses a stretchable polymer light emitting diode (PLED) device (Fig. 2a), comprising:
a hole injection layer (HTL) formed on a lower electrode;
an emitting layer (EML) formed on the hole injection layer and comprising the stretchable light emitting mixed film according to claim 12 (page 19, para 1 and page 21, para 1);
an electron transport layer (ETL) formed on the light emitting layer; and
an upper electrode formed on the electron transport layer (page 3, section 2.2).
Regarding claim 19, Yin discloses the stretchable PLED device according to claim 18, wherein, in the stretchable light emitting mixed film, the light emitting polymer is phase-separated into plural nanodomains and plural nanowebs (connected domains) depending upon a mixing ratio (by controlling the ratio) of the light emitting polymer and the elastomer (page 21, para 1), and
the plural nanodomains and the plural nanowebs are connected to each other forming a continuous pathway (page 22, para 4) to enable isotropic transport of charges (page 14, para 1).
This rejection is based on the interpretation set forth in para #3, above.
Regarding claim 20, Yin discloses the stretchable PLED device according to claim 19, wherein the plural nanodomains and the plural nanowebs are connected to each other so that charges recombine (page 22, para 2) even when the stretchable polymer light emitting diode device is strained at 100% strain (page 21, para 1).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin
in view of “High-brightness all-polymer stretchable LED with charge-trapping dilution” by Zhang et al. (hereinafter Zhang), provided in the IDS filed 2/24/25.
Regarding claim 13, Yin discloses the stretchable light emitting mixed composition according to claim 1 comprising a green-light emitting polymer (page 9) but fails to disclose wherein the green light emitting polymer is a green-light emitting spiro-copolymer.
However, Zhang does teach a stretchable light emitting composition comprising light emitting polymers selected from red emitting PPV, blue emitting polyfluorene and green emitting spiro-copolymer in light emitting films (Fig. 1i).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the known green light emitting spiro-copolymer of Zhang as the green light emitting polymer in Yin to provide a biocompatible, high brightness, stretchable light emitting display for use on skin (Zhang, abstract) without sacrificing comfort (Yin, page 1, para 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNNE EDMONDSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2678. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/L.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/Matthew E. Hoban/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights