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
Claims 2-8, 10-15, and 20-22 are objected to because of nonconsistency.:
Regarding claims 2-8, please change “The polymer” to “The stretchable light-emitting polymer”.
Regarding claims 10-15 and 17, please change “The diode” to “The stretchable organic light-emitting diode”.
Regarding claims 20-22, please change “The polymer” to “The stretchable light-emitting polymer”.
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 8, 15, and 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.
Claim 8 recites “the polymer exhibits a crack on-set strain of greater than 100%”. It is unclear how a chance could be “greater than 100%”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the electron injection layer…” and “the hole transporting layer...” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 22 recites “the polymer exhibits a crack on-set strain of greater than 100%”. It is unclear how a chance could be “greater than 100%”.
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 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,195,886).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses stretchable light-emitting polymer of formula (I), (II), (Ill), (IV), or (V):
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein D is a donor chemical moiety capable of donating electrons;
A is an acceptor chemical moiety capable of accepting electrons;
(Fig. 7, “p” is “m” in the claim
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
meets (III),
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
)
T is a chemical moiety comprising D bonded to A;
S is a stretchable section, comprising a stretchable chemical moiety selected from the group consisting of
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 7,
PNG
media_image5.png
77
51
media_image5.png
Greyscale
meets
PNG
media_image6.png
200
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
)
m is an integer from 1 to 100;
n is an integer from 1 to 50.
In the Figure, Park discloses a dihedral angle of a bond; however, Park does not explicitly disclose the dihedral angle of a bond between D and A is from about 75.0° to about 90.0°. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure dihedral angle of a bond between D and A is from about 75.0° to about 90.0° in order to increase flexibility, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 9, Park discloses a stretchable organic light-emitting diode, comprising:
a cathode layer (column 6, line 43);
an anode layer (column 6, line 32);
a film comprising a stretchable light-emitting polymer of formula (I), (II), (Ill), (IV), or (V):
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein D is a donor chemical moiety capable of donating electrons;
A is an acceptor chemical moiety capable of accepting electrons;
(Fig. 7, “p” is “m” in the claim
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
meets (III),
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
)
T is a chemical moiety comprising D bonded to A;
S is a stretchable section, comprising a stretchable chemical moiety selected from the group consisting of
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 7,
PNG
media_image5.png
77
51
media_image5.png
Greyscale
meets
PNG
media_image6.png
200
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
)
m is an integer from 1 to 100;
n is an integer from 1 to 50.
In the Figure, Park discloses a dihedral angle of a bond, but Park does not explicitly disclose the dihedral angle of a bond between D and A is from about 75.0° to about 90.0°. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure dihedral angle of a bond between D and A is from about 75.0° to about 90.0° in order to increase flexibility, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-21 are allowed.
Claims 2-7, 10-14, and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding to claim 2, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “R is a linker moiety, bonded in either direction, selected from the group consisting of
PNG
media_image7.png
200
400
media_image7.png
Greyscale
” in combination with the limitations recited in claim 1 and the rest of limitations recited in claim 2.
Regarding to claim 3, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “the donor chemical moiety is selected from the group consisting of D-1 to D-31 and wherein the donor chemical moiety is bonded to the acceptor chemical moiety at a carbon or nitrogen atom of the donor chemical moiety” in combination with the limitations recited in claim 1.
Regarding to claim 4, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “the acceptor chemical moiety is selected from the group consisting of A-1 to A-42 and wherein wherein the acceptor chemical moiety is bonded to the donor chemical moiety at a carbon, nitrogen, boron, or sulfur atom, and the acceptor chemical moiety is bonded to each of two stretchable sections at each of a second and a third carbon, nitrogen, boron, or sulfur atom” in combination with the limitations recited in claim 1.
Regarding to claim 5, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “the polymer is selected from the group consisting of PDKCM, PDKCP, PDKCD, PDKCH, and PTrz-tBuCz” in combination with the limitations recited in claim 1.
Regarding to claim 6, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “the polymer exhibits a charge transfer absorption at a wavelength of from 350 to 400 nanometers, and a second charge transfer absorption at a wavelength of from 400 to 450 nanometers” in combination with the limitations recited in claim 1.
Regarding to claim 7, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “the polymer exhibits a prompt decay of about 10 nanoseconds and a delayed decay of about 3 microseconds” in combination with the limitations recited in claim 1.
Regarding to claim 10, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “R is a linker moiety, bonded in either direction, selected from the group consisting of
PNG
media_image7.png
200
400
media_image7.png
Greyscale
” in combination with the limitations recited in claim 9 and the rest of limitations recited in claim 10.
Regarding to claim 11, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “the donor chemical moiety is selected from the group consisting of D-1 to D-31 and wherein the donor chemical moiety is bonded to the acceptor chemical moiety at a carbon or nitrogen atom of the donor chemical moiety” in combination with the limitations recited in claim 9.
Regarding to claim 12, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “the acceptor chemical moiety is selected from the group consisting of A-1 to A-42 and wherein wherein the acceptor chemical moiety is bonded to the donor chemical moiety at a carbon, nitrogen, boron, or sulfur atom, and the acceptor chemical moiety is bonded to each of two stretchable sections at each of a second and a third carbon, nitrogen, boron, or sulfur atom” in combination with the limitations recited in claim 9.
Regarding to claim 13, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “the polymer is selected from the group consisting of PDKCM, PDKCP, PDKCD, PDKCH, and PTrz-tBuCz” in combination with the limitations recited in claim 9.
Regarding to claim 14, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “the cathode layer and the anode layer comprise thermoplastic polyurethane comprising transparent silver nanowire” in combination with the limitations recited in claim 9.
Regarding to claim 17, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “the diode is configured to exhibit a maximum external quantum efficiency of about 10% during stretching to 100% strain” in combination with the limitations recited in claim 9.
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding to claim 15, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “the electron injection layer comprises poly[(9,9-bis(3' -((N,N-dimethyl)-N-ethylammonium)-propyl)-2,7-fluorene)-alt-2,7-(9,9-dioctylfluorene)] (PFN-Br) and polyethyleneimine ethoxylated (PEIE) in a weight ratio of from about 2: 1 to about 1 :4; and/or wherein the hole transporting layer comprises poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) poly(styrenesulfonate) (PEDOT:PSS) with perfluorinated ionomers (PFI) in a weight ratio of from about 3:1 to about 1:50” in combination with the limitations recited in claim 9.
Pertinent Art
For the benefits of the Applicant, US-7652136-B2, US-20230192719-A1, US-11737346-B2, US-6660813-B2US-20230407009-A1, US-8318894-B2, US-12707847-B2, US-20220285624-A1US-12012481-B2, US-11552250-B2, US-6340731-B1, and US-20220407008-A1, are cited on the record as being pertinent to significant disclosure through some but not all claimed features of the defined invention. In particular, the references fail to disclose a stretchable light-emitting polymer having the formula exactly as being claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU A VU whose telephone number is (571)270-7467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, CHAD M DICKE can be reached at (571) 270-7996. 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.
/VU A VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights