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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed January 16, 2026 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2, 9 and 18 are canceled. Claims 22-24 are new. Claim 19 is withdrawn. Currently, claims 1, 3-8, 10-17, 20-24 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-17, 20-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3 recites, “an emitting layer” and should state, “the light emitting layer” to properly reference back to claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 16, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al. (US 2016/0236007) in view of Enwemeka et al. (US 2018/0280723).
Regarding claim 1, Khan et al. discloses a light cosmetology or light therapy organic electroluminescence sheet (fig. 1) configured to be used in light cosmetology or light therapy application ([0003]), the organic electroluminescence sheet comprising: an organic electroluminescence device (“organic light-emitting diode (OLED)” [0038]) having a structure in which a cathode 35, multiple layers 10, 15, 20, 30, and an anode 5 are laminated (“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)) on a sheet-like flexible substrate (“capping layer and/or enhancement layer” [0038]; see also “flexible wrapping material 210” [0098], fig. 4 where OLED 200 is oriented to allow light to emit away from substrate 210 in the same manner as fig. 1) with the cathode between the substrate and the multiple layers and the multiple layers between the cathode and the anode (fig. 1; [0038]), wherein the multiple layers comprise (a) at least one selected from an electron injection layer and an electron transport layer 30, (b) a light emitting layer 20, and (c) at least one selected from a hole transport layer 15 and a hole injection layer 10 in this order from the cathode side, the anode has first and second opposed surfaces, the multiple layers have a first surface facing the second surface side of the anode and a second surface opposed to the first surface of the multiple layers, the cathode has a first surface facing the second surface of the multiple layers and a second surface opposed to the first surface, the organic electroluminescence device has a single sheet-like flexible substrate ([0038]), the light emitting layer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a polymer, a metal complex, a benzene compound, a naphthalene compound, a phenanthrene compound, a chrysene compound, a perylene compound, a coronene compound, an anthracene compound, a pyrene compound, a pyran compound, an acridine compound, a stilbene compound, a thiophene compound, a benzooxazole compound, a benzimidazole compound, a benzothiazole compound, a butadiene compound, a naphthalimide compound, a coumarin compound, a perynone compound, an oxadiazole compound, an aldazine compound, a cyclopentadiene compound, a quinacridone compound, a pyridine compound, a spiro compound, a metallic phthalocyanine compound, a non-metallic phthalocyanine compound, and a boron compound material (“1,3,5-Tris(1-phenyl-1H-benzimidazol-)2-yl)benzene (TPBI) was then deposited at about 0.1 nm/s rate on the emissive layer” [0159]), and the light cosmetology or light therapy organic electroluminescence sheet is a bottom emission device ([0009]) in which light is emitted from a substrate side of the light cosmetology or light therapy organic electroluminescence sheet (regarded as an inherent feature of bottom emission devices).
Khan et al. does not expressly disclose the sheet-like flexible substrate (“capping layer and/or enhancement layer”) has a first surface facing the second surface of the cathode but does teach in another embodiment (fig. 2) how the sheet-like flexible substrate 40 (“capping layer”) has a first surface facing the second surface of the cathode 35 in the manner claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Figure 1 embodiment of Khan et al. to position the capping layer to face the second surface of the cathode 35 as it is a known orientation for the capping layer in light-emitting devices, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Khan et al. does not expressly disclose the organic electroluminescence device having a thickness of 10 to 100 µm. Enwemeka et al. teaches it is known in the art for the thickness dimensions of an organic electroluminescence device to be 10 to 100 µm (“The overall thickness of light source 10 is typically about 10 mm or less (e.g., about 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0.5, 0.4, 0.3, 0.2, 0.1, 0.05 mm or less)” [0177]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khan et al. to select a thickness of 10 to 100 µm as taught by Enwemeka et al. since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., INC., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 4, Khan et al. discloses a battery pack 130 ([0085]) but does not expressly disclose a thin film battery. Enwemeka et al. teaches a light cosmetology or light therapy organic electroluminescence sheet further comprising a thin film battery (“The battery may be a printed battery, or a flexible printed primary or secondary cell capable of flexing with the printed LED or OLED substrate.” [0165-0166]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khan et al. to include a thin film battery as taught by Enwemeka et al. in order to allow for the device to be driven by a power supply that is built into the substrate ([0165]).
Regarding claim 5, Khan et al. in view of Enwemeka et al. disclose the organic electroluminescence sheet has a thickness of 650 µm or smaller (“The overall thickness of light source 10 is typically about 10 mm or less (e.g., about 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0.5, 0.4, 0.3, 0.2, 0.1, 0.05 mm or less)” [0117]).
Regarding claims 6-7, Khan et al. discloses a light cosmetology instrument or light therapy instrument comprising: the light cosmetology or light therapy organic electroluminescence sheet according to claim 1 (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 16, Khan et al. discloses wherein the organic electroluminescence device comprises a metal oxide layer between the sheet-like flexible substrate 40 and the cathode 35 (“metal oxides such as MoO.sub.3, WO.sub.3, SnO.sub.2 and SnO” [0065]).
Regarding claim 22, the limitation “the light cosmetology instrument which is configured to continuously emit light from the light cosmetology or light therapy organic electroluminescence sheet” is a statement of intended use rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations.
Claim(s) 3, 8 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al. (US 2016/0236007) in view of Enwemeka et al. (US 2018/0280723), and further in view of Yun et al. (US 2013/0161590).
Regarding claims 3 and 23, Khan et al. discloses wherein the multiple layers comprise a metal layer (“hole-transport material comprises…a phthalocyanine metal complex” [0058]; “hole-injection material(s) include… a phthalocyanine metal complex derivative such as phthalocyanine copper (CuPc)” [0059]; “the electron transport layer may be aluminum quinolate (Alq.sub.3)” [0060]) but does not expressly disclose it is a metal oxide layer. Yun et al. teaches it is known in the art to use a metal oxide material for the electron transport layer ([0104]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khan et al. to use a metal oxide as the electron transport layer as taught by Yun et al. since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 8, Khan et al. discloses wherein the organic electroluminescence device has a metal layer between the cathode and an emitting layer (“the electron transport layer may be aluminum quinolate (Alq.sub.3)” [0060]) but does not expressly disclose it is a metal oxide layer. Yun et al. teaches it is known in the art to use a metal oxide material for the electron transport layer ([0104]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khan et al. to use a metal oxide as the electron transport layer as taught by Yun et al. since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 10-13 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al. (US 2016/0236007) in view of Enwemeka et al. (US 2018/0280723), and further in view of Balasubramanian et al. (EP 2,143,144 B1).
Regarding claims 10-12, Khan et al. discloses in another embodiment wherein the multiple layers comprise an electron injection layer 25 (fig. 2; [0163]) formed from “LiF, CsF, Cs” ([0061]) but does not expressly disclose wherein the electron injection layer is a nitrogen-containing film layer formed of a nitrogen-containing compound and formed by a polyamine. Balasubramanian et al. teaches it is known in the art for a photoactive layer to serve as an electron injection layer and to include a nitrogen-containing compound with a polymer comprising polyamine (e.g. a polyethylenimine) ([0016], [0018], claim 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khan et al. to use a nitrogen-containing film layer formed of a nitrogen containing compound and formed by a polyamine such as polyethylenimine as taught by Balasubramanian et al. as it is a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, the results of such a modification being reasonably predictable and would not alter the overall operation of the device.
Regarding claim 13, Kahn et al. does not expressly disclose the average thickness of the nitrogen-containing film layer is 0.5 nm to 10 nm. However, Balasubramanian et al. teaches a nitrogen-containing ([0016]) electron injection layer 150 ([0038]) comprises a thickness of at least 1 nm to at most 10 nm ([0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Khan et al. to select an average thickness of the nitrogen-containing electron injection layer to be between 1nm to at most 10nm as taught by Balasubramanian et al. as a change in shape only routine skill in the art and such a rearrangement would not appear to alter the operation of the device and the results of such a rearrangement would be reasonably predictable.
Regarding claim 24, Khan et al. in view of Balasubramanian et al. disclose wherein the electron injection layer comprising the nitrogen-containing film layer is the sole electron injection layer in the organic electroluminescence device.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al. (US 2016/0236007) in view of Enwemeka et al. (US 2018/0280723), and further in view of Li et al. (US 2017/0179198).
Regarding claim 14, Khan et al. does not expressly disclose the organic electroluminescence device has a metal oxide layer which is a laminate containing a metal oxide layer and an elemental metal layer. Li et al. teaches it is known in the art to provide a laminate comprising an elemental metal layer (“silver nanostructure”) with a metal oxide such as zinc oxide in order to significantly improve the charge recombination of photovoltaic devices ([0043]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khan et al. to use an elemental metal layer such as silver with a metal oxide such as zinc oxide for an electron transport material as taught by Li et al. as it is a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, the results of such a modification being reasonably predictable and would not alter the overall operation of the device.
Regarding claim 15, Khan et al. in view of Li et al. disclose wherein the elemental metal layer includes silver and/or palladium (“silver nanostructure” [0043]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al. (US 2016/0236007) in view of Enwemeka et al. (US 2018/0280723) and further in view of Tsuruta et al. (US 2021/0017413).
Regarding claim 17, Khan et al. discloses wherein the multiple layers comprise an electron injection layer 115 (“electron injection and hole blocking layer” [0052]) but does not expressly disclose the organic electroluminescence device has a laminate containing a metal oxide layer and an elemental metal layer as an electron injection layer or a cathode. Tsuruta et al. teaches it is known in the art for a cathode of a light emitting element to comprise layers of elemental metal (“aluminum, silver”) and metal oxide (“aluminum/aluminum oxide”) used in combination ([0138]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khan et al. to use a metal oxide layer and an elemental metal layer for a cathode as taught by Tsuruta et al. as it is a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, the results of such a modification being reasonably predictable and would not alter the overall operation of the device. The limitation of a laminate is regarded as a product-by-process limitation. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al. (US 2016/0236007) in view of Enwemeka et al. (US 2018/0280723) and further in view of Dong et al. (US 2019/0103571).
Regarding claims 20-21, Khan et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the sheet-like flexible substrate comprises at least one resin material selected from the group consisting of polyethylene terephthalate, polyethylene naphthalate, polypropylene, cycloolefin polymer, polyamide, polyethersulfone, polymethylmethacrylate, poly carbonate, and polyacrylate. Dong et al. teaches mounting a cathode 110 (“indium tin oxide (ITO) cathode” [0052]) on a sheet-like flexible substrate that comprises a resin material (“a polyethylene naphthalate (PEN) film 505 substrate” [0098]; fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khan et al. to mount the cathode electrode on a sheet-like flexible substrate as taught by Dong et al. it is a known configuration for light emitting devices and would allow the device to be more easily wrapped around a body part to provide uniform light, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khan et al. to use a substrate comprising a polyethylene naphthalate (PEN) film as taught by Dong et al. since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416
Conclusion
27. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Boudreault et al. (US 12,389,791).
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 ERICA S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1480. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-7pm, flex.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571) 270-5625. 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.
/ERICA S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796