DETAILED ACTION
Email Communication
Applicant is encouraged to authorize the Examiner to communicate via email by filing form PTO/SB/439 either via USPS, Central Fax, or EFS-Web. See MPEP 502.01, 502, 502.03.
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
Applicant’s amendment of 08/04/2026 does not place the Application in condition for allowance.
Claims 1-3 and 5-11 are currently pending. In response to Office Action mailed on 05/19/2026, Applicant has amended claim 1 and cancelled claim 4.
Status of the Rejections
Due to Applicant’s amendment of claim 1, all rejections from the Office Action mailed on 05/19/2026 are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1-3 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mikami et al. (US 2006/0244372 A1) in view of Leduskrasts et al. ("Cation-[pi] interactions secure aggregation induced emission of planar organic luminophores", CHEMICAL COMMUNICATIONS, vol. 55, no. 84, 4 October 2019 (2019-10-04), pages 12663-12666) (cited in IDS dated 05/26/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Mikami discloses a multi-layered light emitting electrochemical cell (LEC) (composite emitting device, fig. 1) comprising:
a light emitting layer (fluorescent film 10, or combination of fluorescent film 10 and organic luminescent medium 6, fig. 1 and [0050]), the light emitting layer (10 or 10+6) being placed between a transparent anode layer (transparent electrode 4, fig. 1, [0050], [0086] and [0091]) entirely covering said light emitting layer (10 or 10+6) (see fig. 1), and a cathode layer (reflecting electrode 8, fig. 1 and [0050] and [0091]), wherein the light emitting layer (10 or 10+6) comprises a pyridinium luminophore (organic fluorescent dye such as 1-ethyl-2-(4-(p-dimethylaminophenyl)-1,3-butadienyl)-pyridinium-perchlorate, [0115]).
However, Mikami does not disclose the pyridinium luminophore is a compound of Formula 1.
Leduskrasts discloses highly emissive pyridinium luminophore that can be used in optoelectronic devices (left column, page 12663, left column page 12666). Leduskrasts further discloses that the pyridinium luminophore is
PNG
media_image1.png
183
298
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(7a, fig. 2), which reads on instant claimed formula of Formula 1 with R1 being al aliphatic group (-CH3), R2 being a neutral (hydrogen), L being an aromatic liker, and X being ClO4-.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the pyridinium luminophore as taught by Leduskrasts in the device of Mikami because the pyridinium luminophore is highly emissive, as taught by pyridinium luminophore, and thus would increase emission efficiency.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the pyridinium luminophore as taught by Leduskrasts in the device of Mikami because selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 2, Mikami further discloses that the light emitting layer (10 or 10+6) further comprises a neutral polymer (resin that includes polymer such as PMMA, [0114] and [0117),
Regarding claim 3, Mikami further discloses that the neutral polymer is poly(methyl methacrylate) ([0117]).
Regarding claim 7, Mikami further discloses that the light emitting layer is 100 nm thick (see example 1).
Alternatively, Mikami further discloses that the light emitting layer has a thickness of 5 nm to 5 µm ([0111]). Thus, claimed range (80-400 nm) lies within the disclosed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)) (MPEP § 2144.05 - (I)). Further alternatively, selection of element’s dimension is considered to be a matter of design choice, depending upon the dimensions and gradient present in the installation site, among other considerations. In the absence of evidence of criticality, selection of the thickness of the light emitting layer as claimed is considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Also note that in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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.
Regarding claim 8, Mikami further discloses that fluorescent film (10) is made of fluorescent material and a resin, or only with the fluorescent material ([0114]). Thus, when the layer is made of only fluorescent material, the fluorescent material) is 100 wt % of the light emitting layer (10).
Regarding claim 9, Mikami further discloses that fluorescent film (10) is made of fluorescent material and a resin, or only with the fluorescent material ([0114]). Thus, when the layer is made of only fluorescent material, the neutral polymer (resin) is 0 wt % of the light emitting layer (10).
Regarding claim 10, Mikami further discloses that light emitting layer is spin-coated directly onto the anode layer (4) ([0112] and example 1).
Alternatively, Mikami further discloses that light emitting layer (10+6) is coated directly onto the anode layer (4) (see fig. 1). It is further noted that limitation to “spin coating" is directed to formation of a product by a process, which does not further define the structure of the claimed device. "[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." See MPEP §2113. See also In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698,227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). There is no difference evident between the device of the instant claims and those taught by the prior art as described above.
Regarding claim 11, Mikami further discloses that the cathode layer (8) is deposited onto the light emitting layer (10+6). It is further noted that limitation to “thermal evaporation in vacuum" is directed to formation of a product by a process, which does not further define the structure of the claimed device. "[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." See MPEP §2113. See also In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698,227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). There is no difference evident between the device of the instant claims and those taught by the prior art as described above.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikami as applied above, and further in view of Kobashi et al. (WO 2021/002021 A1) (refer to US 2022/0359845 A1 for English translation).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Mikami further discloses that a hole injection layer ([0096]) adject to the light emitting layer. However, Mikami does not disclose that the hole injection layer is a poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) polystyrene sulfonate layer with a thickness of 20-70 nm, and formed between the anode and the light emitting layer.
Kobashi discloses an organic light emitting device (1) wherein a hole injection layer (6) is disposed between an anode (4) and light emitting layer (8) (fig. 1 and [0018-0019]). Kobashi further discloses that the hole injection layer is a poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) polystyrene sulfonate layer (PEDOT:PSS layer) with a thickness of 40 ([0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the 40 nm thick PEDOT:PSS layer of Kobashi to form the hole injection layer of Mikami between the anode and the light emitting layer, because doing so enables for formation of predictable result of a hole injection layer, as shown by Kobashi and desired by Mikami ([0096]).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the PEDOT:PSS layer of Kobashi to form the hole injection layer of Mikami between the anode and the light emitting layer because selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP § 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-3 and 5-11 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection as necessitated by the amendments.
On page 5 of Remarks, Applicant argues that LECs are a class of emitting devices distinct from OLEDS and thus it would be obvious to use AIEgens used in OLEDS as taught by Leduskrasts.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Leduskrasts discloses that the AIEgens is being used in optoelectronic devices (see page 12663) due to its high emissivity. One skilled in the art realizes that LEC is a type of optoelectronic devices. Thus, it would be obvious to use the highly emissive material of Leduskrasts in the device of Mikami to enhance the emission efficiency.
Alternatively, even if Leduskrasts teaches that AIEgens used in OLEDS arguendo, both the references teach the use of light emitting material that can emit light. Since the material as taught by Leduskrasts has high emissivity, it would be obvious to use the material of Leduskrast in the device of Mikami such that the emission efficiency is increased. MPEP clearly states that “Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art” (see MPEP §2141).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Correspondence/Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GOLAM MOWLA whose telephone number is (571)270-5268. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th, 7am - 4pm.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached on 303-297-4684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GOLAM MOWLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights