DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the amended claim 1, Applicant argues Ju et al. (KR102028925B1; hereinafter “Ju”), and further in view of Sakajiri et al. (US 2016/0007456 A1), Chen et al. (US 2018/0067579 A1; hereinafter “Chen”) and Kim et al. (US 2021/0217923 A1; hereinafter “Kim”) and J. Choi et al., " Junction-Free Electrospun Ag Fiber Electrodes for Flexible Organic Light Emitting Diodes," Small, 2017, 1702567, 1-7; hereinafter “Choi2017” fails to teach the amended claim 1 due to the following:
(a) Kim describes a "metallic fiber" formed by electrospinning a dispersion containing metal nanoparticles and then sintering. See Kim [0042]-[0046], [0062]-[0066]. That architecture is materially different from the Ju electrode structure relied on by the Office, and the rejection does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the cited art to arrive at a single first electrode containing both the claimed 300-500 nm first fibrous electrodes and the claimed 2-3 pm second fibrous electrodes.
(b) Choi2017 does not teach the predicate now expressly required by claim 1: a first electrode including both the claimed first fibrous electrode and the claimed second fibrous electrode. Accordingly, the Office's conclusion that the claimed first-width and second-width fibrous electrodes "would have substantially similar thicknesses" rests on an unsupported "would have" leap, not on a teaching or suggestion in the applied combination.
In regard to applicants argument (a), Kim teaches the present invention includes a transparent electrode produced by the production method described above and a display device or an electroluminescent device (see Kim paragraph 76 and 79). Therefore as both electrodes are used in a similar devices there is no reason why the architecture is materially different. Further, the motivation for combining the references as stated in the Non-Final rejection mailed 02/18/2026, states that electrode as taught in Kim allows for the manufacture of a flexible electrode which hardly causes deterioration of electrical properties even with repeated deformation while having excellent flexibility (Kim paragraph 9).
In regard to applicants argument (b), as stated in the Non-Final rejection mailed 02/18/2026, Choi2017 states the Ag fiber electrodes produced by depositing the PS fibers on AG films will have a thickness of 20, 40, 80, or 160 nm, based on the thickness of the Ag film used prior to etching (see Choi2017 Fig. 1, Fig. 3a, and [pages 2-3, sections 2.1 and 2.2]). There is nothing provided within the argument that suggest that these specified widths do not occur more than once during manufacture. Also, as stated in the Non-Final rejection mailed 02/18/2026 the thickness of the electrodes in the device prevents device failures due to unwanted shorts as taught by Choi2017 (2.2. Ag Fiber Electrodes Characterization, lns 2-4).
As applicants arguments are unpersuasive, the Examiner asserts that Ju and further in view of Sakajiri, Chen, Kim and Choi2017 teach the amended claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 1, it is unclear what the Applicant regards as the “plurality of fibrous electrodes” (emphasis added). The limitation in lines 5-6 states “wherein the first electrode includes a plurality of fibrous electrodes” (emphasis added). However, the limitation in lines 13-14 states “wherein at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode, which comprises a plurality of fibrous electrodes” (emphasis added). As amended, claim 1 suggests there are two groupings of the plurality of electrodes, however, there are no indicators of there being multiple groupings of fibrous electrodes within the specification. Also, as suggested in the amended claim 1, the first electrode can potentially contain two distinct groupings of fibrous however, there are no indicators of there being multiple groupings of fibrous electrodes located in the first electrode within the specification. Furthermore, if multiple groupings of the fibrous electrodes are present within the device, due to the lack of indicators or specificity within the claim or specification between the groupings of electrodes, it is also unclear what limitations would be applied to each grouping of the first and second fibrous electrodes, such as the thickness or sheet resistance.
Claims 2 and 5-11 are rejected due to depending on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ju et al. (KR102028925B1; hereinafter “Ju”), and further in view of Sakajiri et al. (US 2016/0007456 A1), Chen et al. (US 2018/0067579 A1; hereinafter “Chen”) and Kim et al. (US 2021/0217923 A1; hereinafter “Kim”) and J. Choi et al., " Junction-Free Electrospun Ag Fiber Electrodes for Flexible Organic Light Emitting Diodes," Small, 2017, 1702567, 1-7; hereinafter “Choi2017”.
In regard to claim 1, Ju teaches a light emitting element (structure shown in Fig. 12) (Fig. 12 and paragraph 20), comprising:
a first electrode (an electrode 21) (Fig. 12 and paragraph 47);
a second electrode (a second electrode 60) facing the first electrode (Fig. 12 and paragraph 71); and
a plurality of functional layers (layers that comprise an organic light emitting layer 50) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (Fig. 12 and paragraph 66), wherein
the first electrode includes a plurality of fibrous electrodes, which are randomly disposed (the electrode 21 is shown containing fibrous electrodes in Fig. 10) (Fig. 10 and paragraph 24)
wherein each of the first fibrous electrode and the second fibrous electrode has a thickness in a thickness direction of the first electrode or the second electrode (the first and second fibrous electrodes are shown extending in a thickness direction in Fig. 9).
However, Ju doesn’t explicitly teach the plurality of fibrous electrodes includes: a first fibrous electrode having a first width in a plan view; and a second fibrous electrode having a second width different from the first width in a plan view, wherein the first width of the first fibrous electrode is in a range of about 300 nm to about 500 nm, and the second width of the second fibrous electrode is in a range of about 2 um to about 3 um, and wherein at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode, which comprises a plurality of fibrous electrodes, has a sheet resistance of less than or equal to 19 Ω/sq, and
the thickness of the first fibrous electrode is substantially equal to the thickness of the second fibrous electrode in the thickness direction.
Sakajiri teaches the manufacture of transparent electrodes in display devices (paragraph 2);
a plurality of fibrous electrodes (a conductive nanowire network of a transparent electrode) (Fig. 1 and paragraph 13), includes:
a first fibrous electrode having a first width in a plan view (the fibers in the conductive nanowire network have a mean fiber size which indicates there are fibers with thicker and thinner fiber sizes) (Fig. 1 and paragraph 28); and
a second fibrous electrode having a second width different from the first width in a plan view (the fibers in the conductive nanowire network have a mean fiber size which indicates there are fibers with thicker and thinner fiber sizes) (Fig. 1 and paragraph 28).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Ju with Sakajiri to have the plurality of fibrous electrodes include a first fibrous electrode having a first width in a plan view, and a second fibrous electrode having a second width different from the first width in a plan view since these thickness are determined by the electrodes intended use as taught by Sakajiri (paragraph 23).
Chen teaches the manufacture of transparent conductive films in display devices (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 5-8), wherein a first width of the first fibrous electrode is in a range of about 300 nm to about 500 nm (a metallic core wire 121 has a diameter ranged from 5 nm to 500 nm) (Fig. 3 and paragraph 26).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Ju in view of Sakajiri with the teachings of Chen to have the first width of the first fibrous electrode is in a range of about 300 nm to about 500 nm since this allows for the manufacture of an electrode that can filter blue light from white light as taught by Chen (paragraph 6). Further it is known amongst those skilled in the art the thickness of the fibrous electrode is considered to be a manufacturing constraint determined by the functions of the device as taught by Sakajiri (paragraph 14).
Kim teaches a transparent electrode produced used in a display device, wherein a second width of the second fibrous electrode is in a range of about 2 μm to about 3 μm (the metallic fiber may have a diameter of an order of about 100 nm to 10 μm) (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 50-51), and
wherein at least one of first electrode and second electrode, which comprises a plurality of fibrous electrodes (a transparent electrode including a conductive network which is formed of metal nanowire) (Fig. 1 and paragraph 71), has a sheet resistance of less than or equal to 19 Ω/sq (the transparent electrode may have a sheet resistance of 1.9 Ω/sq. or less) (paragraph 22).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Ju in view of Sakajiri with the teachings of Kim to have the second width of the second fibrous electrode be in a range of about 2 μm to about 3 μm, and at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode, which is comprised of a plurality of fibrous electrodes, have a sheet resistance of less than or equal to 19 Ω/sq, since this allows the manufacture of a flexible electrode which hardly causes deterioration of electrical properties even with repeated deformation while having excellent flexibility as taught by Kim (paragraph 35). Further it is known amongst those skilled in the art the thickness of the fibrous electrode is considered to be a manufacturing constraint determined by the functions of the device as taught by Sakajiri (paragraph 14).
Choi2017 teaches a thickness of a first fibrous electrode (a portion of Ag fiber electrodes) is substantially equal to a thickness of a second fibrous electrode (a different portion of the Ag fiber electrodes) in the thickness direction (the Ag fiber electrodes produced by depositing the PS fibers on AG films will have a thickness of 20, 40, 80, or 160 nm, based on the thickness of the Ag film used prior to etching) (Fig. 1, Fig. 3a, and [pages 2-3, sections 2.1 and 2.2]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Ju in view of Sakajiri, Chen, and Kim with the teachings of Choi2017 to have the thickness of the first fibrous electrode is substantially equal to the thickness of the second fibrous electrode in the thickness direction since this prevents device failures due to unwanted shorts as taught by Choi2017 (2.2. Ag Fiber Electrodes Characterization, lns 2-4).
In regard to claim 2, Ju teaches wherein first fibrous electrode and second fibrous electrode are integral with each other (the first and second fibrous electrodes as shown in Fig. 9 below are also shown to be integral in Fig. 10).
PNG
media_image1.png
295
765
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 5, Ju teaches wherein the first fibrous electrode and the second fibrous electrode each independently comprises silver (Ag), gold (Au), platinum (Pt), aluminum (Al), copper (Cu), tin (Sn), gallium (Ga), indium (In), nickel (Ni), or a combination thereof (the conductive layer which forms the electrode 21 may include at least one of silver (Ag), gold (Au),platinum (Pt), aluminum (Al), copper (Cu), tin (Sn), gallium (Ga), indium (In), and nickel (Ni)) (paragraph 12).
In regard to claim 11, Ju teaches wherein the plurality of functional layers comprises:
a hole transport region (a hole transport layer 51) disposed on the first electrode (Fig. 12 and paragraph 66);
an emission layer (a light emitting layer 52) disposed on the hole transport region (Fig. 12 and paragraph 66); and
an electron transport region (an electron transport layer 53) disposed on the emission layer (Fig. 12 and paragraph 66).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ju in view of Sakajiri, Chen, and Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. ("Ag fiber/IZO Composite Electrodes: Improved Chemical and Thermal Stability and Uniform Light Emission in Flexible Organic Light Emitting Diodes", Scientific Reports, January 24, 2019, Vol. 9:738; hereinafter “Choi2019”).
In regard to claim 6, Ju in view of Sakajiri doesn’t explicitly teach wherein at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode further comprises: a buffer layer disposed on the plurality of fibrous electrodes and includes a transparent conductive oxide.
Choi2019 teaches wherein at least one of a first electrode (an Ag fiber electrode) and the second electrode further comprises: a buffer layer (an IZO buffer layer) disposed on the plurality of fibrous electrodes and includes a transparent conductive oxide (the IZO forms a buffer layer on the Ag fiber electrode) (Fig. 1 and Introduction, lns 31-33).
It would’ve been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time to combine the teachings of Ju in view of Sakajiri with the teachings of Choi2019 to have at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode further comprise a buffer layer disposed on the plurality of fibrous electrodes and include a transparent conductive oxide since this allows for increased chemical and thermal stability of the device as well as uniform light emissions as taught by Choi2019 (Introduction, lns 33-36).
In regard to claim 7, Ju teaches wherein a buffer layer (the conductive organic material 40) covers the plurality of fibrous electrodes (the conductive organic material 40 covers the first electrode 21) (Fig. 12 and paragraph 61).
In regard to claim 8, Ju teaches wherein the buffer layer has an upper surface parallel to an upper surface of the first electrode or the second electrode (the conductive organic material 40 has an upper surface that is parallel to the upper surfaces of the first electrode 21 in Fig. 12).
In regard to claim 9, Ju in view of Sakajiri, Chen, Kim and Choi2019 wherein the buffer layer comprises indium zinc oxide (the IZO forms a buffer layer on the Ag fiber electrode) (Choi2019 Fig. 1 and Introduction, lns 31-33).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ju in view of Sakajiri, Chen, Kim and Choi2019 as applied to claim 6, and further in view Yang et al. (US 2014/0084266 A1; hereinafter “Yang”).
In regard to claim 10, Ju in view of Sakajiri, Chen, Kim and Choi2019 teach a first buffer layer disposed on the plurality of fibrous electrodes and including the transparent conductive oxide (the IZO forms a buffer layer on the Ag fiber electrode) (Choi2019 Fig. 1 and Introduction, lns. 31-33).
However, Ju in view of Sakajiri, Chen, Kim, and Choi2019 don’t explicitly teach a second buffer layer disposed on the first buffer layer and includes a conductive polymer.
Yang teaches a light emitting element (an electro-optic device as shown in Fig. 4) (Fig. 4 and paragraph 50), a second buffer layer (buffer layer 2) disposed on a first buffer layer (buffer layer 1) and includes a conductive polymer (the buffer layer 2 can contain PEDOT:PSS which is a known conductive polymer) (Fig. 4 and paragraph 51).
It would’ve known to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Ju in view of Sakajiri, Chen, Kim, and Choi2019 with the teachings of Yang to have a second buffer layer disposed on the first buffer layer and including a conductive polymer since this layout prevents damage to lower layers during the formation of a top electrode as taught by Yang (paragraph 50).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-20 are allowed as previously indicated in the non-final office action mailed 05/29/2025.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEYON ALI-SIMAH PUNCHBEDDELL whose telephone number is (571)270-0078. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur: 7:30AM-3:30 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, Sue Purvis can be reached at (571) 272-1236. 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.
/SEYON ALI-SIMAH PUNCHBEDDELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights