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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09 June 2022, 11 August 2023, 10 January 2025, 10 February 2025, and 10 March 2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: ¶ [0021] of the Specification re: the description of FIG. 3 contains a minor grammatical error: “… of one of pixels…” The description appears intended to be that of a top view of a pixel.
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.
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.
1. Claims 1, 3-4, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0155970 to D. Chung (“Chung”) in view of US 2011/0127472 to Sato et al. (“Sato”).
With regard to Claims 1, 3-4, and 10-11, Chung teaches a method of making a vertical organic light-emitting transistor device comprising preparing a substrate, applying a hydrocarbon polymer thereon, applying a dispersed carbon nanotube layer thereon, and drying the dispersion layer (see Abstract; FIG. 1; ¶¶ [0035]-[0038]). Chung does not expressly teach removing dispersant via applying a cleaning fluid. Sato is similarly directed to preparation of dispersed carbon nanotube conductive layer materials, and teaches removing excess dispersion liquid via washing with solvent (see Abstract; ¶¶ [0078]-[0079]). Further according to Sato, usage of aqueous alkaline material aids in impurity removal (see ¶ [0131]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have performed a cleansing step in the method of Chung using an alkaline aqueous solution to remove excess dispersant and improve purity of the carbon nanotube layer as taught by Sato.
With regard to Claim 8, Chung teaches polymer layer materials with the claimed oxygen content (see ¶ [0035]).
With regard to Claim 9, Chung teaches application of the CNT dispersion layer via a solution process, and indicates spin coating, slit coating, spray coating, and inkjet coating as examples thereof (see ¶¶ [0038], [0053], [0058], [0068], [0078]).
2. Claims 2, 5-7, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung in view of Sato as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of JP 2016118763 to Uesaka et al., a translation of which is provided herewith and referred-to herein, (“Uesaka”).
With regard to Claims 2 and 12-13, Chung teaches a dispersed carbon nanotube liquid and usage of a variety of coating techniques therefor; however the reference does not expressly teach the claimed proportion of dispersant relative to carbon material. Uesaka is similarly directed to producing polymer light emission layers comprising transparent conductive films using similar solution processes wherein the layers feature improved coatability, adhesion, and alignment properties, and teaches dispersants therefor (see Abstract; ¶¶ [0003]-[0004], [0066], [0071], [0082]). According to Uesaka, solids content in layer materials is selectable based on coating method (see ¶ [0070]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have employed a solids content within the claimed range in the method of Chung throughout the course of routine experimentation and optimization in identifying a desired coating method as taught by Uesaka.
With regard to Claims 5-7 and 14, Chung does not teach the claimed dispersant. As noted, Uesaka is similarly directed to production of light emission films, and teaches the claimed dispersant, noting that produced films feature improved coatability, adhesion, and alignment properties (see Abstract; ¶¶ [0001]-[0004], [0021]-[0024], [0066], [0079]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have employed the dispersant of Uesaka in the method of Chung in order to realize the advantages identified by Uesaka.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael P Rodriguez whose telephone number is (571)270-3736. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 Eastern M-F.
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 571-272-5166. 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.
/Michael P. Rodriguez/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715