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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “characterized in that” is extraneous and should be deleted. Also, the phrase “conductive thin film comprising” should be changed to “conductive thin film comprises” to be grammatically consistent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 4 depends on claim 1 and specifies the electronic element. However, claim 1 is not directed to an electronic element but a thin film. While claim 1 recites an intended use for the film, said intended use is not limiting to the thin film. Consequently, the thin film of claim 1 is not altered in any way in claim 4.
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.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,502,208 B2 to Oyamada in view of Pham et al., Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 365 (2012) 103-109.
Regarding claim 1, Oyamada discloses an organic light-emitting device having the general configuration of anode/HIL/HTL/EML/EIL/cathode wherein the hole-injection layer (HIL) has a thickness of 45 nm and comprises PEDOT mixed with 50 wt% of silver nanoparticles having an average diameter of 8-10 nm (see, for example, col. 16, lines 54+). Since PEDOT and silver have specific densities of about 1 g/cm3 and 10 g/cm3, respectively, the 50 wt% is equivalent to about 9 vol%. This thin film differs from the claimed thin film in that the nanometal is silver instead of copper. Nevertheless, as Oyamada teaches that the nanometal can be “a metal such as Au, Ag or the like” (col. 8, line 38) and since Pham et al. discloses that copper is much less expensive for electronic application than gold and silver and also discloses a method of minimizing the oxidation of Cu to Cu2O when dispersed in a PEDOT film, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the device disclosed by Oyamada by replacing the expensive Ag nanoparticles with Cu nanoparticles. Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are therefore unpatentable for being obvious. See MPEP § 2143(I)(G). Claim 3 is also obvious because, even with the method disclosed by Pham et al., some oxidation of copper to copper oxide is unavoidable. Claims 7-11 and 13 are unpatentable for the same reasons. Note that the prior art device does have an electron transport layer (see the figures and description in column 6). Claim 12 is obvious because, while Oyamada fails to elaborate on the light-emitting layer (col. 6, lines 28-33), the use of a host material and a fluorescent or phosphorescent dopant in the light-emitting layers of OLEDs is well known in the art.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU ANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5454. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, ROBERT JONES can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
/VU A NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762