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
Claims 1-22 are pending in the current application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0049] of the specification as originally filed recites “p is an integer in the range from 0 to 10,” however, the preceding and following context of the (2) polymer does not include a variable “p” and the variable “p” that pertains to the (1) polymer is already defined as being 0 or 1. The specification should be amended to provide further clarification.
[00199] of the specification as originally filed recites “metal complex days.” This is a typographical error, and should be amended to recite “metal complex dyes
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 recites “metal complex days.” This is a typographical error, and should be amended to recite “metal complex dyes
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-22 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.
Claims 1 and 12 are indefinite as the recitation of possible elements is not properly claimed in the alternative. Treatment of claims reciting alternatives is not governed by the particular format used (e.g., alternatives may be set forth as "a material selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C" or "wherein the material is A, B, or C"). See, e.g., the Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications ("Supplementary Guidelines"), 76 Fed. Reg. 7162, 7166 (February 9, 2011). Alternative expressions are permitted if they present no uncertainty or ambiguity with respect to the question of scope or clarity of the claims. A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group "consisting of" (rather than "comprising" or "including") the alternative members. Abbott Labs., 334 F.3d at 1280, 67 USPQ2d at 1196. If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group "comprising" or "consisting essentially of" the recited alternatives), the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. If a claim is intended to encompass combinations or mixtures of the alternatives set forth in the Markush grouping, the claim may include qualifying language preceding the recited alternatives (such as "at least one member" selected from the group), or within the list of alternatives (such as "or mixtures thereof"). Id. at 1281. See MPEP 2173.05(h).
For the purposes of examination, claim 1 on page 4 is interpreted as instead reciting “R1 and R2 and R3 are each independently selected from the group consisting of H, halo, …, and -Y-heteroaryl; ….”
For the purposes of examination, claim 1 on page 4 is interpreted as instead reciting “R4 is independently selected at each occurrence from the group consisting of H, C1-20 alkyl, …, and -Y-heteroaryl; ….”
For the purposes of examination, claim 1 on page 4 is interpreted as instead reciting “R5 is independently selected at each occurrence from the group consisting of halo, -CN, …, and -Y-heteroaryl; ….”
For the purposes of examination, claim 12 is interpreted as instead reciting “the dye comprises one or more dyes selected from the group consisting of perylene diimide dyes, …, and metal complex dyes
Correction is required.
Claim 9 recites the term “p is an integer in the range from 0 to 10” that renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide context or examples pertaining to the term, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 9 does not depict or discuss the term “p” within the context of the disclosed colored dielectric polymer material. It is unclear what the term “p” is referring to. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as instead reciting “k is 0, 1, or 2; and m is1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6
Claims 2-8, 10, 11, and 13-22 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, since these claims depend from the claims rejected above and do not remedy the aforementioned deficiencies.
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 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.
Claims 1-8, 12-15, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews et al. (US 2010/0239793 A1) in view of Usta et al. (US 2013/0200345 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Andrews teaches a dielectric layer for electrical applications (such as optical displays) formed from a composition comprising one or more dielectric polymers selected from acrylic and/or styrene polymers and about 0.5-10 wt% of a dye dispersed within the polymers (Andrews, Abstract, [0009]-[0011], [0025]-[0026], [0034]-[0035], [0096]).
Andrews remains silent regarding a crosslinked polymer selected from group (1) or group (2) of claim 1.
Usta, however, teaches a dielectric polymer material for optoelectronic devices comprising a crosslinked polymer formed of a first repeating unit of Formula (Ia) and optionally a second repeating unit of Formula (Ib) (Usta, Abstract, [0002], [0007]-[0008], [0046]-[0069], [0081]-[0085]). Usta’s first repeating unit of Formula (Ia) and second repeating unit of Formula (Ib) satisfy Formula (Ia) and Formula (Ib) of group (1) of claim 1, respectively. Usta teaches the dielectric polymer material can include other component and additives (Usta, [0078]).
PNG
media_image1.png
153
220
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
138
158
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Usta – Formulae (Ia) & (Ib)
Since Andrews and Usta both disclose dielectric polymer layers for optoelectronic displays and Usta suggests the dielectric polymer material can include other components, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added Usta’s crosslinked dielectric polymer material into Andrews’ dielectric composition comprising a dye to yield a dielectric layer that exhibits resistance against gate bias stress, high electrical breakdown strength, low leakage properties, air and water stability, physical robustness, low hysteresis, uniform film thickness, and compatibility with diverse gate materials and semiconductors as taught by Usta (Usta, [0007]-[0008], [0019], [0021]).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Andrews teaches L can be absent (Usta, [0046]-[0048], [0057]).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Andrews teaches Z can be a C6-14 aryl group substituted with 1-5 groups independently selected from a halogen, -CN, Re, -O-Re, -S-Re, where Re is a C1-10 alkyl group (Usta, [0050], [0059]).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Andrews teaches the polymer can have a first repeating unit selected from the images depicted below that satisfy claim 4 (Usta, [0060]-[0064]).
PNG
media_image3.png
310
311
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Usta – Formula (Ia) example repeating units
Regarding Claim 5, modified Andrews teaches the polymer can be a copolymer comprising at least a first repeating unit of Formula (Ia) and a second repeating unit of Formula (Ib) (Usta, [0046]-[0057], [0061]-[0068]).
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, modified Andrews teaches the polymer can be a copolymer comprising at least a first repeating unit of Formula (Ia) and a second repeating unit of Formula (Ib), where the second repeating unit of Formula (Ib) is selected from the images depicted below that satisfy claims 6 and 7 (Usta, [0046]-[0057], [0061]-[0068]).
PNG
media_image4.png
217
258
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Usta – Formula (Ib) example repeating units
Regarding Claim 8, modified Andrews teaches the polymer can be a copolymer having a structure as depicted below that satisfies claim 8 (Usta, [0067]-[0069]).
PNG
media_image5.png
321
364
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Usta – copolymer of Formula (Ia) and Formula (Ib) repeating units
Regarding Claim 12, modified Andrews teaches the dye comprises phthalocyanine dyes (Andrews, [0035]).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Andrews teaches the dye is present in an amount of about 0.5-10 wt% (Andrews, [0035]). Modified Andrews’ dye content range overlaps the claimed range of at least 1 wt%, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Andrews teaches the dielectric layer is part of a layered body, where the layered body has a maximum transmittance of about 80% at the wavelength of the imaging radiation which can be from 300 nm to 1500 nm (Andrews, [0051]-[0059]). Modified Andrews maximum transmittance overlaps the claimed range of at least 50% and wavelength range encompasses the claimed range of 380 nm to 750 nm, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed ranges (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Andrews teaches the dielectric layer is part of a layered body, where the layered body has a minimum transmittance of about 20% at the wavelength of the imaging radiation which can be from 300 nm to 1500 nm (Andrews, [0051]-[0059]). Modified Andrews minimum transmittance overlaps the claimed range of no more than 20% and wavelength range encompasses the claimed range of 380 nm to 750 nm, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed ranges (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Andrews teaches that pigments can be utilized, but does not require the inclusion of pigments and instead suggest dyes are suitable (Andrews, [0056]-[0057]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and to have tried dyes instead of pigments with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Andrews teaches the material can have a dielectric constant of 3.4-6.8 (Andrews, Tables A-G). Modified Andrews’ dielectric constant values overlap with the claimed range of 6 or less, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Andrews teaches the polymer has a dielectric breakdown voltage of 4 MV/cm or higher (Usta, [0086]). Modified Andrews’ range is encompassed within the claimed range of no less than 1 MV/cm, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Andrews teaches a film of the material has a thickness of preferably about 0.2 to 3 microns (Andrews, [0043]). Modified Andrews’ range is encompassed within the claimed range of no more than 4 microns, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03).
Regarding Claim 21, modified Andrews teaches an optical electronic device comprising the material of claim 1 (Andrews, Abstract, [0046], [0087], [0096]).
Claims 1, 9-15, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews et al. (US 2010/0239793 A1) in view of Quinn et al. (US 2011/0215334 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Andrews teaches a dielectric layer for electrical applications (such as optical displays) formed from a composition comprising one or more dielectric polymers selected from acrylic and/or styrene polymers and about 0.5-10 wt% of a dye dispersed within the polymers (Andrews, Abstract, [0009]-[0011], [0025]-[0026], [0034]-[0035], [0096]).
Andrews remains silent regarding a crosslinked polymer selected from group (1) or group (2) of claim 1.
Quinn, however, teaches a dielectric polymer material for optoelectronic devices comprising a crosslinked polymer formed of a repeating unit having a coumarin functional group (Quinn, Abstract, [0005]-[0012], [0060]-[0088], [0129]). Quinn’s repeating unit satisfies the formula of group (2) of claim 1. Quinn teaches the dielectric polymer material can be utilized in various formulations and can be used in dielectric layers (Quinn, [0127]-[0128]).
PNG
media_image6.png
209
244
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Quinn – Dielectric Polymer repeating unit
Since Andrews and Quinn both disclose dielectric polymer layers for optoelectronic displays and Quinn suggests the using the dielectric polymer material in various formulations and dielectric layers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added Quinn’s crosslinked dielectric polymer material into Andrews’ dielectric composition comprising a dye to yield a dielectric layer that exhibits air and moisture stability, compatibility with diverse gate and semiconductor materials, and exhibits low current leakage density as taught by Quinn (Quinn, [0004]-[0006]).
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, modified Andrews teaches the polymer can have a structure as depicted below that satisfies claims 9 and 10 (Quinn, [0122]-[0125]).
PNG
media_image7.png
319
156
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Quinn – Dielectric Polymer repeating unit
Regarding Claim 11, modified Andrews teaches the crosslinked dielectric polymer has a dielectric constant of about 1.1 to 5.0 (Quinn, [0131]). Modified Andrews’ dielectric constant range overlaps the claimed range of 2 to 8, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Andrews teaches the dye comprises phthalocyanine dyes (Andrews, [0035]).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Andrews teaches the dye is present in an amount of about 0.5-10 wt% (Andrews, [0035]). Modified Andrews’ dye content range overlaps the claimed range of at least 1 wt%, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Andrews teaches the dielectric layer is part of a layered body, where the layered body has a maximum transmittance of about 80% at the wavelength of the imaging radiation which can be from 300 nm to 1500 nm (Andrews, [0051]-[0059]). Modified Andrews maximum transmittance overlaps the claimed range of at least 50% and wavelength range encompasses the claimed range of 380 nm to 750 nm, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed ranges (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Andrews teaches the dielectric layer is part of a layered body, where the layered body has a minimum transmittance of about 20% at the wavelength of the imaging radiation which can be from 300 nm to 1500 nm (Andrews, [0051]-[0059]). Modified Andrews minimum transmittance overlaps the claimed range of no more than 20% and wavelength range encompasses the claimed range of 380 nm to 750 nm, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed ranges (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Andrews teaches that pigments can be utilized, but does not require the inclusion of pigments and instead suggest dyes are suitable (Andrews, [0056]-[0057]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and to have tried dyes instead of pigments with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Andrews teaches the material can have a dielectric constant of 3.4-6.8 (Andrews, Tables A-G). Modified Andrews’ dielectric constant values overlap with the claimed range of 6 or less, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Andrews teaches the polymer has a dielectric breakdown voltage of 4 MV/cm or higher (Quinn, [0134]). Modified Andrews’ range is encompassed within the claimed range of no less than 1 MV/cm, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Andrews teaches a film of the material has a thickness of preferably about 0.2 to 3 microns (Andrews, [0043]). Modified Andrews’ range is encompassed within the claimed range of no more than 4 microns, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03).
Regarding Claim 21, modified Andrews teaches an optical electronic device comprising the material of claim 1 (Andrews, Abstract, [0046], [0087], [0096]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELI D STRAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7088. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 7 pm.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/Eli D. Strah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights