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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election of Group I (Claims 1-16) in the reply filed on 8/3/26 is acknowledged. Because applicants did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
Claims 2-5 , 8-10 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong-Stringer, High Performance Multilayer Encapsulation for Perovskite Photovoltaics, Advanced Energy Materials, 2018, “Wong-Stringer” in view of McKenzie et al, ( US 2010/0201280) .
With respect to Claim 2, Wong-Stringer discloses a perovskite light emitting diode (Figure 1) comprising: a substrate (Figure 1, glass); a hole-transport layer (Figure 1, ii, HTM, hole transport material) disposed over the substrate; a perovskite layer (Figure 1, iii) disposed over the hole-transport layer; an electron-transport layer(Figure 1, iv, ETM, electron transport material) disposed over the perovskite layer; and an electrode (Figure 1, vi, silver cathode) disposed over the electron-transport layer. See Figure 1 and corresponding text, especially page 2 of 11, right column.,
However, Wong-Stringer does not disclose “wherein the perovskite light emitting diode is thermally managed to reduce Joule heating and increase heat dissipation”.
Mckenzie et al discloses the importance of thermally managing light emitting diodes to reduce Joule heating and increase heat dissipation, by using a heat spreader and heat sink, and its benefit of increasing the efficiency of the light emitting device. See paragraphs 3-6, 9, 16-22, 85 and 101-105.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to thermally manage the light emitting device of Wong-Stringer, for its known benefit of improving the efficiency of the light emitting device, as disclosed by McKenzie et al.
With respect to Claim 3, the combined references make obvious the limitation “ wherein the hole-transport layer and/or the electron transport layer is doped to increase device conductivity”. See page 2, right column, first ten lines of Wong-Stringer.
With respect to Claim 4, the combined references make obvious the limitation “ wherein the hole-transport layer comprises poly TDP”. See page 2, right column, first ten lines of Wong-Stringer.
With respect to Claim 5, the combined references make obvious the limitation” the poly TPD is p-doped F4-TCNQ. ”. See page 2, right column, first ten lines of Wong-Stringer.
With respect to Claim 8, the combined references make obvious the limitation “wherein the substrate has a thermal conductivity greater than a thermal conductivity of glass”. See McKenzie et al paragraph 8, sapphire. The use of a known substrate, for its known benefit, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 9, the combined references make obvious the limitation “wherein the substrate comprises sapphire”. See McKenzie et al paragraph 8, sapphire. The use of a known substrate, for its known benefit, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 10, McKenzie et al discloses further comprising “ a heat spreader disposed over the electrode; and a heat sink disposed over the heat spreader”. See paragraphs 104-105 of McKenzie et al.
With respect to Claims 12-14 changes in size and shape are obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
With respect to Claim 15, the combined references make obvious the limitation “further comprising a control circuit configured to drive the perovskite light emitting diode with electrical pulses” See Figure 1 of Wong-Stringer and paragraph 104 McKenzie et al.
With respect to Claim 16, and the limitation “wherein the electrical pulses have a pulsing width (PW) of greater than or equal to 1 ns”, the optimization of a result effective variable in a known process is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong-Stringer, High Performance Multilayer Encapsulation for Perovskite Photovoltaics, Advanced Energy Materials, 2018, “Wong-Stringer” in view of McKenzie et al, ( US 2010/0201280) as applied to claims 2-5 , 8-10 and 12-16 above, and further in view of Lin et al, Beating the Thermodynamic Limit with photo-activation of n-doping in organic semiconductors, Nature Materials, Vol. 16, December 2017 “Lin et al”.
Wong-Stringer and McKenzie et al are relied upon as discussed above.
However, neither reference discloses the electron-transport materials as required by the Claims at hand.
Lin et al disclose the use of electron transport material POPy2 n-doped with (RuCp*Me02) in LED devices. See Figure 1 and right column of page 1210.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to use the materials of Lin et al, in the LED device of Wong Stringer in view of McKenzie et al, for their known benefit as electron transport materials. The use of a known composition, for its known benefit as an electron transport material in LED, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 6, Lin et al discloses the electron-transport layer is (POPy2). See Figure 1 and right column of page 1210 of Lin et al.
With respect to Claim 7, Lin et al discloses wherein the POPy2 is n-doped with (RuCp*Me02). See Figure 1 and right column of page 1210.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 is allowed.
Claim 11 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER G GHYKA whose telephone number is (571)272-1669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571 272-8458. 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.
AGG
September 2, 2026
/ALEXANDER G GHYKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights