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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on February 23, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant 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)).
Claims 16-17, 20-21, and 23-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 23, 2026.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid et al. (US Pub. No. 2010/0084639) in view of Ghidiu et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0294546).
Regarding Claim 1: Schmid et al. teaches an electrode comprising a substrate, an electrode layer such as ITO on top of the substrate, an electric semiconductive layer on the electrode, an organic functional layer on the semiconductive layer, and a second electrode on the organic functional layer (conductor material in electronic communication with other layers) (Fig. 1, [0044]). Schmid et al. teaches the semiconductive layer as a hole-injection material ([0044]).
Schmid et al. does not teach MXene material. However, Ghidiu et al. teaches MXene material as an alternative to ITO in devices such as OLEDs ([0003], [0011], [0107). Schmid et al. and Ghidiu et al. are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely materials for OLEDs. At the time of the invention a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include the MXene of Ghidiu et al. as the electrode material of Shmid et al. and would have been motivated to do so because Ghidiu et al. teaches that MXene can replace ITO due the high cost of raw materials and expensive synthetic techniques required to make ITO ([0011]).
Regarding Claim 2: Schmid et al. teaches the substrate as glass ([0044]).
Regarding Claim 3: Ghidiu et al. teaches the MXene material as Ti3C2 ([0019] and [0084]-[0088]).
Regarding Claim 4: Ghidiu et al. teaches the MXene material as a film with nanometer thickness (nanosheet) ([0013] and [0018]).
Regarding Claim 9: Schmid et al. teaches an electrically semiconductive layer present, wherein the electrically semiconductive layer comprises CBP ([0007]-[0011] and [0027]).
Regarding Claim 10: Schmid et al. teaches the material as emitting light (transparent) ([0026]).
Regarding Claim 11: The OLED of Schmid et al. can necessarily function as a display device.
Regarding Claim 12: Schmid et al. teaches the conductive material (electrode) as aluminum (metallic) ([0044]).
Regarding Claim 13: The Office recognizes that all of the claimed physical properties are not positively taught by the reference, namely the work function. However, the combined references render obvious all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, process steps, and process conditions. Furthermore, there is nothing in Applicant’s original specification to indicate that the claimed properties are the result of anything other than the claimed material present in the claimed layer. Therefore, the claimed physical properties would implicitly be achieved by the composition as claimed and rendered obvious. If it is the Applicant' s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be presented to support Applicant' s position; and (2) it would be the Office's position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, process steps, and process conditions.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid et al. (US Pub. No. 2010/0084639) in view of Ghidiu et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0294546) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of De Kok-Van Breemen (US Pub. 2006/0231828).
Schmid et al. in view of Ghidiu et al. render obvious the electrode of claim 1 as set forth above.
Schmid et al. does not teach the hole-injection material as chemically neutralized or polymeric. However, De Kok-Van Breemen et al. teaches a hole-injection layer comprising at least partially neutralized poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene poly(styrenesulfonate) (PDOT) (abstract). Schmid et al. and De Kok-Van Breemen et al. are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely materials for light-emitting diodes. At the time of the invention a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include the neutralized poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene poly(styrenesulfonate) of De Kok-Van Breemen et al. in the hole-injection layer of Schmid et al. and would have been motivated to do so because De Kok-Van Breemen et al. teaches that the neutralization of the polymer leads to greater efficiency of the LED ([0005] and [0008]).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid et al. (US Pub. No. 2010/0084639) in view of Ghidiu et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0294546) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US Pub. No. 2008/0020208).
Schmid et al. in view of Ghidiu et al. render obvious the electrode of claim 1 as set forth above.
Schmid et al. does not teach the hole-injection layer as a perfluorinated polymer. However, Lee et al. teaches a hole-injection layer comprising a perfluorinated ionomer (abstract and [0058]). Schmid et al. and Lee et al. are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely OLED devices. At the time of the invention a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include the perfluorinated ionomer of Lee et al. in the hole-injection layer of Schmid et al. and would have been motivated to do so because Lee et al. teaches that it provides an improved efficiency and lifetime ([0174]-[0175] and Table 1).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER F GODENSCHWAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-3302. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00, M-F 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/PETER F GODENSCHWAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767 March 16, 2026