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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 ends with “and Y is a monocyclic or polycyclic, it-conjugated, ring system:.”, where there is a colon and then the sentence ends with a period.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Neither the claims nor the specification explains the meaning of the symbol
PNG
media_image1.png
52
20
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. For the sake of examination, the symbol will be considered to stand for a single bond or one or more additional chemical groups including groups A or D between claimed groups D and A.
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 1-5, 8-11, 13-17, and 19-24 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, 4, 8, 9, 11, and 19 recite definitions for subunits A, D, or both subunits. In those definitions, the subunit is generally defined according to formulae 112b-f1 or 112b-f2 below, where B is some general ring system, where 112b-f1 and 112b-f2 represent subunits A and D, respectively.
This formula scheme defines A and D as including ring system B as a block attached to D or A, respectively. This recursive definition of the subunits is indefinite. Claims 2, 3, 5, 10, 13-17, 20-24 are similarly rejected as claims dependent on the claims listed above (6).
Claim 8 recites the limitation of “formula (IIIa-i), (IIIa-ii), (IIIa-iii), (IIIa- iv), (IIIa-v), (IIIa-vi) or (IIIa-vii)”. While claim 8 then provided limiting formulas, these are unnamed and do not follow the previously mentioned naming convention. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the sake of examination, these named formulas and listed formulas will be considered to be the same, with names correlating to the order of appearance.
Claims 16, 17, and 19 recites the limitation " RY " at the end of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the sake of examination, these claims will be considered to define RY in the same manner as claim 11.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-11, 13-17, and 19-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tierney et al. (US Pub. No. 20110226999 A1), hereinafter Tierney.
Regarding claim 1, Tierney teaches a polymer that can be used in organic electronics (pg. 1, [0001]). In an embodiment according to I2, Tierney teaches monomeric unit formula I2 below, comprised of units derived from indacenodithiophene (IDT) and Ar and R1-4 are identical or different groups independently of each other selected from H, halogen, --CN, --NC, --NCO, --NCS, --OCN, --SCN, --C(==O)NR0R00, --C(==O)X.sup.0, --C(==O)R0, --NH2, --NR0R00, --SH, --SR0, --SO3H, --SO2R0, --OH, --NO2, --CF3, --SFs, P-Sp-, optionally substituted silyl, or carbyl or hydrocarbyl with 1 to 40 C atoms that is optionally substituted and optionally comprises one or more hetero atoms, where P is a polymerizable group, Sp is a spacer group or a single bond, X0 is halogen, R0 and R00 are independently of each other H or an optionally substituted carbyl or hydrocarbyl group optionally comprising one or more hetero atoms (pgs. 2, 4, [0025-0029, 0058]). The IDT derived unit reads on D as a collinear, π-electron rich group where X is a polycyclic, π-conjugated ring system. Tierney teaches that Ar is especially preferred to be 2,1,3-benzothiadiazole-4,7-diyl or 2,1,3-benzoselenadiazole-4,7-diyl (BS) (pg. 5, [0059]).
PNG
media_image6.png
363
735
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Tierney teaches in a different related embodiment, represented by formula II2a, the preferred attachment of 2,1,3-benzothiadiazole-4,7-diyl to monomeric unit (shown below) (pg. 6 [0064]). Tierney goes on to teach the method for this attachment and polymerization in example 4, where, briefly, a mixture of 2,7-dibromo-4,9-dihydro-4,4,9,9-tetrakis(hexadecyl)-s-indaceno[1,2-b:5,6-- b']dithiophene (0.60 g, 0.45 mmol), 4,7-bis(4,4,5,5-tetramethyl-1,3,2-dioxaborolan-2-yl)-2,1,3-benzothiadiazole (0.176 g, 0.45 mmol), tris(dibenzylideneacetone)dipalladium(0) (8.3 mg, 0.009 mmol), tri(o-tolyl)phosphine (11 mg, 0.04 mmol) and toluene (15 cm3) is added Aliquat 336 (0.10 g) and the mixture is degassed. To the mixture is added a degassed aqueous solution of sodium carbonate (2.0 M, 0.7 cm3) and the mixture is further degassed. The mixture is heated, precipitated into methanol, and filtered (pgs. 19-20, [0197-0198]).
PNG
media_image7.png
346
729
media_image7.png
Greyscale
While the embodiments described in (16) use 2,1,3-benzothiadiazole-4,7-diyl, which reads on the claimed structure of A save for sulfur’s presence as instant Q, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to use the attachment scheme and methodology provided for the 2,1,3-benzothiadiazole-4,7-diyl attachment Tierney teaches for the equally preferred embodiment of formula I2 and later polymer embodiment correlated to I2, II2, where BS is in the place of I2’s Ar and would read on instant’s collinear, π-electron deficient A where Y is a monocyclic, π-conjugated ring system and Q is selenium (pgs. 4-6, 19-20, [0058-0059, 0062-0064, 0197-0198]).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Tierney teaches an IDT-2,1,3-benzothiadiazole-4,7-diyl compound that would make obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to make the IDT-BS-derived compound described in (15-17), where D is represented by a collinear, π-electron rich group derived from IDT and A is represented by a collinear, π-electron deficient group derived from BS (pgs. 4-6, 19-20, [0058-0059, 0062-0064, 0197-0198]). In this compound, Y would be represented by the lower, 6-membered portion of BS as a monocyclic, aromatic ring, which reads on claim 2. Given that claim 3 uses “when Y is a polycyclic π-conjugated ring system” as a limitation, the limitation is interpreted to be conditional upon Y being polycyclic, which does not apply to the obvious use of BS derived from Tierney and so that reads on claim 3.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Tierney teaches an IDT-2,1,3-benzothiadiazole-4,7-diyl compound that would make obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to make the IDT-BS-derived compound described in (15-17), where D is represented by a collinear, π-electron rich group derived from IDT and A is represented by a collinear, π-electron deficient group derived from BS (pgs. 4-6, 19-20, [0058-0059, 0062-0064, 0197-0198]). The obvious use of BS derived from Tierney reads on formula IIIa, where Q is selenium, W is carbon, and m is 0.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Tierney teaches an IDT-2,1,3-benzothiadiazole-4,7-diyl compound that would make obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to make the IDT-BS-derived compound described in (15-17), where D is represented by a collinear, π-electron rich group derived from IDT and A is represented by a collinear, π-electron deficient group derived from BS (pgs. 4-6, 19-20, [0058-59, 0062-0064, 0197-0198]). The obvious use of BS derived from Tierney reads on formula IIIa-I and instant claim 9’s formula, where Q is selenium.
Regarding claim 10, Tierney teaches an IDT-2,1,3-benzothiadiazole-4,7-diyl compound that would make obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to make the IDT-BS-derived compound described in (15-17), where D is represented by a collinear, π-electron rich group derived from IDT and A is represented by a collinear, π-electron deficient group derived from BS (pgs. 4-6, 19-20, [0058-0059, 0062-0064, 0197-0198]). Tierney’s IDT-derived portion is comprised of a combination of five 5- and 6-membered π-conjugated rings (pgs. 5-6, [0058-59]).
Regarding claim 11, Tierney teaches an IDT-2,1,3-benzothiadiazole-4,7-diyl compound that would make obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to make the IDT-BS-derived compound described in (15-17), where D is represented by a collinear, π-electron rich group derived from IDT and A is represented by a collinear, π-electron deficient group derived from BS (pgs. 4-6, 19-20, [0058-0059, 0062-0064, 0197-0198]). Tierney’s IDT-derived subunit reads on both instant’s IIa and IIb, where X1 and X2 are polycyclic π-conjugated ring systems having 3-4 rings shown below and L is sulfur (pgs. 4-5, [0058, 0059]).
PNG
media_image6.png
363
735
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In Tierney’s example 4, Tierney teaches the use of IDT-derived 2,7-dibromo-4,9-dihydro-4,4,9,9-tetrakis(hexadecyl)-s-indaceno[1,2-b:5,6-- b']dithiophene and its polymerization, forming poly[(2,7-(4,9-dihydro-4,4,9,9-tetrakis(hexadecyl)-s-indaceno[1,2-b:5,6-b- ']dithiophene))-alt-4,7-(2,1,3-benzothiadiazole) (pgs. 19-20, [0197-0198. As discussed in (17), it would have been prima facie a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to make an IDT-BS-derived compound with the tetrakis(hexadecyl) attachments described by Tierney’s example 4. This substituent would read on Ry as a C16 alkyl, where v = 4.
PNG
media_image9.png
314
656
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Tierney teaches an IDT-2,1,3-benzothiadiazole-4,7-diyl compound that would make obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to make the IDT-BS-derived compound described in (15-17, 22-23), where D is represented by a collinear, π-electron rich group derived from IDT and A is represented by a collinear, π-electron deficient group derived from BS (pgs. 4-6, 19-20, [0058-0059, 0062-0064, 0197-0198]). Tierney’s IDT-derived subunit is a polycyclic π-conjugated ring systems having 3 rings.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Tierney teaches an IDT-2,1,3-benzothiadiazole-4,7-diyl compound that would make obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to make the IDT-BS-derived compound described in (15-17, 22-23), where D is represented by a collinear, π-electron rich group derived from IDT with C16 alkyl substituents and A is represented by a collinear, π-electron deficient group derived from BS (pgs. 4-6, 19-20, [0058-0059, 0062-0064, 0197-0198]). This compound according to the obviousness reasoning discussed above would have tetrakis(hexadecyl) substituents that on identical Ry as a C16 alkyl, where v = 4.
Regarding claims 16, 17, and 19, Tierney teaches an IDT-2,1,3-benzothiadiazole-4,7-diyl compound that would make obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to make the IDT-BS-derived compound described in (15-17, 22-23), where D is represented by a collinear, π-electron rich group derived from IDT with C16 alkyl substituents and A is represented by a collinear, π-electron deficient group derived from BS (pgs. 4-6, 19-20, [0058-0059, 0062-0064, 0197-0198]). Tierney’s left monomer subunit reads on D as discussed above and is IDT substituted with four C16 alkyl groups (pgs. 19-20, [197-198]). As discussed above, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to use the attachment scheme and methodology provided for the 2,1,3-benzothiadiazole-4,7-diyl attachment Tierney teaches for the equally preferred embodiment of formula I2 and later polymer embodiment of correlated to I2, II2, where BS is in the place of I2’s Ar and would read on instant’s collinear, π-electron deficient A where Q is selenium (pgs. 4-6, 19-20, [0058-0059, 0062-0064, 0197-0198]).
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Tierney teaches an IDT-2,1,3-benzothiadiazole-4,7-diyl compound that would make obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to make the IDT-BS-derived compound described in (15-17, 22-23), where D is represented by a collinear, π-electron rich group derived from IDT with C16 alkyl substituents and A is represented by a collinear, π-electron deficient group derived from BS (pgs. 4-6, 19-20, [0058-0059, 0062-0064, 0197-0198]). This compound is taught to have repeating, polymeric units and teaching example 4 (23) is a polymer of the monomeric unit I2 (pgs. 5-6, 19-20, [0060-0062, 0197-0198]).
Regarding claims 22, 23, and 24, Tierney teaches an IDT-2,1,3-benzothiadiazole-4,7-diyl compound that would make obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to make the IDT-BS-derived compound described in (15-17, 22-23), where D is represented by a collinear, π-electron rich group derived from IDT with C16 alkyl substituents and A is represented by a collinear, π-electron deficient group derived from BS (pgs. 4-6, 19-20, [0058-0059, 0062-0064, 0197-0198]). Tierney teaches the polymers to be particularly useful as semiconductors or charge transport materials, especially preferred to be used in organic field-effect transistors (OFETs), thin film transistors (TFTs), integrated circuits (ICs), and organic light emitting transistors (OLETs), among other electronic device embodiments (pgs. 2, 8, [0038, 0100, 0133]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen et al. (US Pub. No. 20190375760 A1) discloses thieno-indeno-monomers and polymers and their use in semiconducting materials.
Tierney et al. (US Pub. No. 20110168953 A1) discloses conjugated polymers comprising benzo-bis(silolothiophene) units and OE devices comprising the polymers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMAN M. FARAZDAGHI whose telephone number is (571)270-5813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, Monday - Thursday, 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
/ARMAN M. FARAZDAGHI/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights