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 .
Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on April 18, 2024 has been entered. Claims 1-14 and 16 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9 14, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities.
In claim 1, line 3, the term “the surface” should be changed to “a surface”.
In claim 9, line 3, the term “a polymeric substrate” should be changed to “the polymeric substrate”, since claim 1 provides antecedent basis for this term.
In claim 9, line 8 and 13, the term “a metal…” should be changed to “the metal…”, since claim 1 provides antecedent basis for this term.
In claim 14, line 4, and claim 16, line 3, the term “Organic” should not be capitalized and should be amended to “organic”.
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.
Claims 2, 4, 5, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The term “preferably” in claim 2 (line 2), claim 4 (line 3), claim 5 (line 4), claim 10 (line 3), claim 11 (line 2), and claim 12 (line 10) and the term “more preferably” in claim 5 (lines 4-5), claim 11 (line 3), and claim 12 (line 10) renders these claim indefinite as to scope. Specifically, it is unclear whether the limitations following the term “preferably” are exemplary. See MPEP 2173.05(c) and MPEP 2173.05(d).
In claim 5 (line 4) and claim 12 (line 10), the term “and/or” to define the materials to be selected from the grouping is indefinite as to whether all of the materials are positively included in the claimed groupings.
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.
Claims 1-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azpitarte et al. (WO 2020/020972) in view of Lee et al. (WO 2020/130592). U.S. Pub. 2022/0194969 is the US equivalent to WO ‘592 and is relied upon in the below rejection.
Regarding claims 1-4, WO ‘972 discloses an organic-inorganic material comprising a polymeric substrate, a coating layer directly on a surface of the polymeric substrate, and an infiltrated layer within the polymeric substrate. WO ‘972 discloses that he coating layer and infiltrated layer comprise a metal, semi-metal or semiconductor element and are independently selected from the same types of materials. See claims, particularly claims 1, 8, and 14. Further, WO ‘972 discloses that the polymeric substrate can be polyvinyl chloride (pg 14, lines 14 and 15).
WO ‘972 does not disclose that the organic-inorganic material is self-healing. However, both WO ‘972 (pg 14, lines 14 and 15) and the presently invention (claim 4, line 3) use the same halogen-containing polymeric substrate, i.e., polyvinyl chloride. As set forth in MPEP 2112.01, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, US ‘969 discloses a laminate, which is also useful in optoelectronic devices, having polymeric substrate that can be made from a stretchable polymer, such as polyvinyl chloride, that is capable of self-healing (Fig 16b: ref #120, [1175]-[1177]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected a self-healing polyvinyl chloride as the polymeric substrate in the laminate of WO ‘972, based on the disclosure in WO ‘972 that polyvinyl chloride is a suitable material and the teaching in US ‘’969 that the use of a stretchable, self-healing polymer allows for self-repairing ability from scratches and damage [1177].
Further, while WO ‘972 notes that the metal, semimetal or semiconductor materials in the coating layer and infiltrated layer are different (pg 19, lines 11-12), the materials for the first and second metal, semimetal or semiconductor materials are selected from the same types of materials (pg 19, line 15 et seq.). Thus, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to have modified WO ‘972 such that the same metal, semimetal or semiconductor material is used in the coating layer and infiltrated layer, motivated by the desire to obtain a laminate material having desired durability and mechanical properties resulting from the material choices (pg 4, line 28 to pg 5, line 4).
Regarding claims 5-8, WO ‘972 discloses the claimed metal, semimetal and semiconductor materials (pg 19, line 15 to pg 22, line 22). For example, indium (pg 19, line 31) and metal halides (pg 19, line 16) .
Regarding claim 9, WO ‘972 discloses the claimed process for preparing the organic-inorganic material (claims 1-2).
Regarding claim 10, WO ‘972 discloses that the exposure time between the pulsing step and purging step is preferably between 10 and 180 seconds (pg 22, lines 23-25) and is performed at a temperature of between 50 and 300ᵒC (pg 25, lines 10-11).
Regarding claim 11, WO ‘972 discloses that the pulsing step and purging step can be repeated numerous times, e.g., preferably between 50 and 1,000 times (pg 13, lines 2-14).
Regarding claim 12, WO ‘972 discloses a pulsing time of between 0.01 and 20 seconds (pg 16, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 13, WO ‘972 discloses an organic-inorganic material obtained by the claimed process of claim 9. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claims 14 and 16, WO ‘972 discloses that the organic-inorganic hybrid materials can be used in the fabrication of optoelectronic devices, but does not specifically disclose using the organic-inorganic material with an OLED comprising at least one electrode. US ‘969 discloses that it is known in the art to use similar organic-inorganic materials with an OLED [1185] having an electrode (claim 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the organic-inorganic material of WO ‘972 with an OLED having an electrode, as suggested in WO ‘972, i.e., suitable for use with optoelectronic devices, and taught in US ‘969, motivated by the desire to obtain an OLED device which exhibited enhanced stability, mechanical properties and durability (WO ‘972, pg 3, lines 23-24).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Blaine Copenheaver whose telephone number is (571)272-1156. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/BLAINE COPENHEAVER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
