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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-3, 7-9, 11-15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2005/0043504) in view of Li et al. (WO 2020/093286, see English machine translation provided for mapping).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a polymer or oligomer comprising a constitutional repeating unit of Formula 1 (See Formula 15 on Page 11 and [42]-[45]) with R2 being a linear C8H17 alkyl. Wu does not disclose the combination of substituents for formula 1 as claimed where R2 is independently selected at each occurrence from C1-C20 branched alkyl.
Li discloses on Pages 1-3 of the original document a similar polymer chemical structure to the polymer discloses in Wu and discloses that a C1-C18 branched alkyl group is an alternative a C1-18 straight alkyl group for the substituent R2 (R1 in Li which corresponds to the claimed R2 can be branched C1-C18 branched alkyl or straight alkyl as discussed in Li, [14]-[15], see chemical formulas for R1 in original document).
Given the general formula of Wu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute a branched C1-C18 alkyl for the straight alkyl as the R2 substituent, as taught by Li, because it would be a simple substitution of one known substituent for another suitable alternative to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, modified Wu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Wu additionally discloses A1 as claimed in Formula 15 on Page 11.
Regarding claim 3, modified Wu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Wu additionally discloses A1 as claimed in Formula IVb and [34] (The number of repeat units y can be equal to 2 which would result in the A1 claimed).
Regarding claims 7-8, modified Wu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Wu additionally discloses that R1 can independently be a C8 alkyl (See Formula 15 on Page 11 and [43]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Wu discloses all of the claim limitations set forth above. Wu additionally discloses that R1 is independently selected at each occurrence from —(CH2)5CH3 and —(CH2)9CH3 (R1 can be a hexyl or decyl group, [43]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Wu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Wu additionally discloses that R2 can be branched C5-C8 alkyl (R1 in Li which corresponds to the claimed R2 can be branched C5-C8 alkyl, [14]-[15], see chemical formulas for R1 in original document).
Regarding claim 12, modified Wu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Wu additionally discloses that R2 can be -CH2(CHCH3)CH2CH3 (Li discloses R1 which corresponds to the claimed R2 can be branched C1-C18 alkyl groups which includes the claimed R2 and specifically discloses a branched C5H11 in [14]-[15], see chemical formulas for R1 in original document).
Regarding claim 13, modified Wu discloses all of the claim imitations as set forth above. Modified Wu additionally discloses a polymer or oligomer comprising a constitutional repeating unit of Formula 1 as discussed above. Wu does not disclose the specifically claimed constitutional repeating unit in claim 13; however, Wu discloses that the substituents for R1 can include any alkyl group having 5-25 carbon atoms including hexyl (C6H13) ([43]) and the substituents for R2 can be a branched C1-C18 alkyl group (As modified by Li above). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use any of the disclosed substituents for R1 including a hexyl group (C6H13) and any of the C1-C18 branched alkyl groups for R2 in the polymer of Wu since it would merely be a selection from a limited list of substituents disclosed by Wu for R1 and modified by Li for R2 and would only require routine skill in the art.
The substitutions would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the compound would act in a similar manner as the other compounds disclosed by modified Wu for use in an organic electronic device. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
Regarding claim 14, modified Wu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Wu additionally discloses a composition comprising a polymer or oligomer as set forth above ([57] and [64]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Wu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Wu additionally discloses that the composition further comprises one or more additives ([57], [64], [76], [79]).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, modified Wu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Wu additionally discloses a device comprising a polymer or oligomer as set forth above, wherein the device is a photovoltaic device, a light-emitting diode, or a field-effect transistor (field effect transistor, [65]-[68]).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2005/0043504) in view of Li et al. (WO 2020/093286, see English machine translation provided for mapping), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Blouin et al. (US 2015/0076418).
Regarding claims 4-6, modified Wu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Wu does not disclose the A1 in claims 4-6.
Blouin discloses that the A1 substituents claimed in claims 4-6 are known alternatives (See Pages 8-9, D1, D8, D16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to replace the A1 in modified Wu with the substituents disclosed in Blouin, because it would be a simple substitution of one known substituent for another to obtain predictable results.
Claims 16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2005/0043504) in view of in view of Li et al. (WO 2020/093286, see English machine translation provided for mapping), as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, in further view of Gotanda et al. (US 2016/0260918).
Regarding claim 16, modified Wu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Wu does not disclose that the one or more additives are selected from lithium — bis(trifluoromethane)sulfonimide (Li-TFSI), 4-tert-butylpyridine (tBP), or combinations thereof.
Gotanda discloses a composition comprising a polythiophene hole transport material ([49]-[50]) including one or more additives are selected from lithium — bis(trifluoromethane)sulfonimide (Li-TFSI), 4-tert-butylpyridine (tBP), or combinations thereof ([61]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the composition of Wu such that the one or more additives are selected from lithium - bis(trifluoromethane)sulfonimide (Li-TFSI), 4-tert-butylpyridine (tBP), or combinations thereof, as taught by Gotanda, since it was a known additive in the art at the time the invention was filed. The Courts have held that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for its intended use is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, modified Wu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Wu additionally discloses that the disclosed polymer compositions are suitable for use as charge transport materials in semiconductor electronic devices ([22] and [32]), but Wu does not explicitly disclose a photovoltaic device comprising: at least one perovskite material layer; and at least one hole transport layer comprising a polymer or oligomer as set forth above and further comprising at least one electron transport layer.
Gotanda discloses a photovoltaic device in Figure 1C comprising:
at least one perovskite material layer (13, [35]-[36]);
at least one hole transport layer (11) comprising a polythiophene material ([37]-[38] and [47]-[48]); and
at least one electron transport layer (12, [37]-[38]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the composition of modified Wu in the photovoltaic device of Gotanda, because such a modification would amount to the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot as a result of the new grounds of rejection and the addition of the Li reference.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY A BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-1234. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/LINDSEY A BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights