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 Interpretation
Claim 1 describes a coating film and its properties. This limitation is not given any patentable weight because: (1) claim 1 is directed to a composition rather than a coating; (2) the coating is not recited in a manner where its formation is required by the claim; and (3) the coating is recited as “comprising” the composition rather than consisting only of the composition, so the properties of the film can not reasonably be understood to further described the composition.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2020/0241415).
Claims 1, 2 and 5: Lee teaches a composition (Abst.), comprising: a carbo-based resin binder (¶ 0040); a reactive unsaturated compound (¶ 0063), a photoinitiator (¶ 0074), a colorant (¶ 0072) and a solvent (¶ 0079).
Claim 4: Lee teaches that the carbo-based resin is present in an amount of 1-30 wt% (¶ 0061).
Claims 7-8: Lee teaches that the colorant is an organic pigment (¶ 0066) and is pretreated with a dispersant (¶ 0068).
Claim 9: Lee teaches that the composition further comprises an acryl-based binder resin (¶ 0062).
Claim 11: Lee teaches that the reacted compound is present in an amount of 1-40 wt% (¶ 0065).
Claim 12: Lee teaches that the photoinitiator is present in an amount of 0.01-10 wt% (¶ 0078).
Claims 13-15: Lee further teaches using the composition to form a pixel defining layer in an OLED which includes a control unit (¶¶ 0088-0096).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee.
Claim 6: Lee teaches that the colorant is present in an amount of 1-40 wt% (¶ 0072). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected an amount of 17-35 wt% with the predictable expectation of success.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in light of Tanigaki et al. (US 2018/0259852).
Claim 10: Lee fails to teach the MW of the acryl-based binder. Tanigaki, like Lee, teaches a composition used for forming a pixel defining region, the composition based on a cardo-based resin (Abst.) and explains that a suitable MW for the acryl-based binder is 3,000-100,000 (¶ 0307). The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected an acryl-based binder with a MW of 3,000-100,000 in the composition of Lee with the predictable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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:
Lee teaches that the cardo-based binder resin has the following formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
223
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(¶ 0040), which corresponds to the claimed Formula (1) when A1 and A2 are each claimed formula 2, Y1 and Y2 are each claimed formula 6 (¶ 0051), the ratio of A1 to A2 is 1:1, X1 is, e.g., O (¶ 0046), X2 is, e.g., a C6-30 aryl group (¶ 0048) and each of the R groups have the same definition (¶¶ 0041-0054).
Lee, however, teaches that A1 and A2 both correspond to formula 2 and therefore fails to teach the claimed ratio of formula 2 to formula 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert A Vetere whose telephone number is (571)270-1864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 EST.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571) 270-1034. 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.
/ROBERT A VETERE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights