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 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.
Claim 4 is 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. It is not clear the “Blade coating” refers to what step, film formation or film treatment.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over J. Ouyang et al (WO 2012/158125, here after Ouyang), further in view of Hatef Yousefian et al, Surfaces and Interfaces 51(2024)104451, here after Yousefian, R. Sarabia-Riquelme et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2024/0200237, here after Sarabia-Riquelme), and Steve Park et al (Korean Patent: 20230113487, here after Park).
Claim 1 is rejected. Ouyang teaches a method for manufacturing a work function-tunable ionic liquid-functionalized poly-3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene: poly styrene sulfonate (PEDOT: PSS) film (HFA treated film) [page 13, paragraph 1], comprising:
a pretreatment step of mixing a PEDOT: PSS solution and organic solvent [page 6 lines 16-26] to obtain a pretreatment solution(dispersion);
a film formation step of blade-coating the pretreatment solution onto a substrate [page 7 last paragraph] and
annealing (drying with temperature) [page 8 paragraph 3] to obtain a first-stage film. Ouyang also teaches adding DMSO and ionic liquid to PEDOT: PSS solution to increase conductivity [page 2 lines 29-32]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have and method of Ouyang and add DMSO and ionic liquid to PEDOT: PSS solution, because it improves conductivity. Ouyang teaches repeating the above process (step 116) [fig. 1]. Therefore, a film treatment step of blade-coating DMSO onto the first-stage film (second repeating step) to obtain a DMSO-treated first-stage film, annealing the DMSO-treated first-stage film, and washing(rinsing) with water (to remove DMSO, thereby obtaining a second-stage film) [fig. 1]; and
an ionic liquid treatment step of adding an ionic liquid with deionized water to obtain an ionic liquid solution, blade-coating ionic liquid solution (third repeating step) onto the second-stage film to obtain an ionic-liquid-treated film, annealing the ionic-liquid-treated film and washing(rinsing) with deionized water (to remove the ionic liquid) [fig. 1 page 7 third paragraph to the last], thereby obtaining the ionic liquid-functionalized PEDOT: PSS film [fig. 1]. Ouyang teaches the PEDOT: PSS solution comprising water (aqueous) and organic solvent, but does not teach the organic solvent is methanol. Yousefian teaches adding slightly methanol to aqueous solution of PEDOT: PSS increases the electrical conductivity of resulting film [page 2 first column last 2 lines, column 2 lines 6-10, fig. 1a]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have and method of Ouyang and Yousefian where PEDOT: PSS is dispersed in water and methanol(little), because it increases conductivity. Ouyang teaches rinsing with any solvent [page 11 lines 30-31], but does not teach rinsing with methanol. Sarabia-Riquelme teaches rinsing PEDOT: PSS and DMSO after depositing following by sensing with methanol [0035, 0007]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have and method of Ouyang and Yousefian where rinsing is done with methanol, because it is suitable solvent for rinsing PEDOT: PSS with DMSO. Ouyang does not teach ultrasonically agitating an ionic liquid with deionized water to obtain an ionic liquid solution. Park teaches preparing solution of PEDOT: PSS and ionic liquid by ultrasonic treatment to help formation a uniform composition and be blade to deposit by blade coating [page 2 paragraph 3, page 6 lines 10-11]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have and method of Ouyang Yousefian, and Sarabia-Riquelme, where ultrasonically agitating an ionic liquid with deionized water, because it helps formation a uniform composition and be blade to deposit by blade coating.
Claim 2 is rejected. Although Yousefian does not teach concentration of 20% by volume, however teaches adding methanol changes the conductivity. However, teaches increasing methanol volume more than 4% does not change the conductivity [fig. 1a]. Therefore, in PEDOT: PSS water methanol mixture methanol can be replaced for water to have of 80 vol% of the PEDOT: PSS solution and 20 vol% of methanol and absence of criticality.
Claim 3 is rejected as Ouyang teaches annealing(drying) at 100-150C [page 8 lines 15-16]. Although it does not teach 110C, however overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of [overlapping range] that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Claim 4 is rejected. Ouyang teaches the film thickness is 3 nm-1mm [page 8 lines 6-7]. Although Ouyang does not teach the blade-coating condition, however it is to the skill of an ordinary person in art to optimize the gap, blade angle and blade speed with respect of viscosity of PEDOT: PSS liquid, temperature and desirable thickness of film. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have and method of Ouyang and Yousefian performed when a gap of 0.2 mm, a blade angle of 45°, and a blade speed of 5 cm/min, because it is obvious to optimize these parameters based on viscosity of PEDOT: PSS liquid, temperature and desirable thickness in absence of criticality.
Claim 5 is rejected as Ouyang teaches wherein in the film formation step, the substrate is a glass substrate [page 3 lines 10-13].
Claim 6 is rejected as Ouyang teaches in the film formation step, the drying (annealing) is performed for 1-20 minutes [page 8 lines 15-16]. Although Ouyang does not teach annealing for 5 minutes, however overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of [overlapping range] that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Claim 7 is rejected. Ouyang teaches in the film formation step, the drying(annealing) is performed for 1-20 minutes [page 8 lines 15-16]. Although Ouyang does not teach annealing for 10 minutes, however overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of [overlapping range] that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Claim 8 is rejected. Ouyang teaches the drying(annealing) is performed for 1-20 minutes [page 12 lines 3-5]. Although Ouyang does not teach annealing for 10 minutes, however overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of [overlapping range] that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1885. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights