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 .
Response to Amendments
2. The Amendments filed October 23rd, 2025 are noted. Applicant did not amend the Specification to overcome the objection(s) to the Title previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 07/23/2025, so the objection(s) to the Title has been maintained.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are noted.
3. Claims 7-9 are newly-added; Claims 1-9 remain pending in the application.
4. Claims 1-9 have been fully considered in examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is still not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamaguchi (U.S. PG Pub No US2017/0352708A1) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Yamaguchi teaches an organic semiconductor device [see fig. 13B, 0114] of a plurality of organic semiconductor devices (belonging to plurality of pixels [0002-0003]) formed over an insulating layer (13) fig. 3 [0058], comprising:
a first electrode (14c11, 14c12) fig. 13B [0114];
a second electrode (17) fig. 13B [0071]; and
an organic compound layer (comprising 151-152c, 161-165c stacked materials) fig. 13B [0114],
wherein the organic compound layer (comprising 151-152c, 161-165c) is positioned between the first electrode (14c11) and the second electrode (17),
wherein the organic compound layer (comprising 151-152c, 161-165c materials) comprises a first layer (165cx) fig. 13B [0114] independently included in each of the plurality of organic semiconductor devices (each pixel comprising one 14cx electrode),
wherein the first layer (comprising 165) [0114] comprises a first compound (8-hydroxyquinolinealuminum [0085]),
wherein the second electrode (17) is (‘common electrode’ [0056]) shared by the plurality of organic semiconductor devices (see also fig. 3),
wherein the first electrode (14c11/14c12) is independently included in each of the plurality of organic semiconductor devices (comprising a single 14c1x) [0114], and
wherein, when the first compound is subjected to differential scanning calorimetry in such a manner that a first heating step is performed from 25°C or lower, a temperature is kept for three minutes at a lower one of 450 °C and a temperature lower than a 3 % weight loss temperature (°C) measured with a thermogravimeter by 50 °C, a cooling step is performed at a cooling rate of 40 °C /min or higher, the temperature is kept at 25 °C or lower for three minutes, and a second heating step is performed at a temperature rising rate of 400°C /min or higher until the temperature reaches the keeping temperature after the first heating step, an energy of an exothermic peak observed in the cooling step is higher than or equal to 0 J/g and lower than or equal to 20 J/g, and an energy of an endothermic peak without a baseline shift observed in the second heating step is lower than or equal to 0 J/g and higher than or equal to -20 J/g.
With respect to the underlined limitation(s) above, they have been considered as “product by process” limitation(s) – process steps that do not yield an identifiable structure in the product. Note that a “product by process” limitation is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made. See In re Thorpe et al. 227 USPQ 964 (CFAC, 1985) and the related case law cited therein, which makes it clear that it is the final product per se which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that, as here, an old or obvious product by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not. As stated in Thorpe, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969); Buono v. Yankee Maid Dress Corp., 77 F.2d 274, 279, 26 USPQ 57, 61 (2d. Cir. 1935. (See MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 2, Yamaguchi teaches an organic semiconductor device [see fig. 13B, 0114] of a plurality of organic semiconductor devices (belonging to plurality of pixels [0002-0003]) formed over an insulating layer (13) fig. 3 [0058], comprising:
a first electrode (14c11, 14c12) fig. 13B [0114];
a second electrode (17) fig. 13B [0071]; and
an organic compound layer (comprising 151-152c, 161-165c stacked materials) fig. 13B [0114],
wherein the organic compound layer (comprising 151-152c, 161-165c) is positioned between the first electrode (14c11) and the second electrode (17),
wherein the organic compound layer (comprising 151-152c, 161-165c materials) comprises a first layer (165cx) fig. 13B [0114] independently included in each of the plurality of organic semiconductor devices (each pixel comprising one 14cx electrode),
wherein the first layer (comprising 165) [0114] comprises a first compound (8-hydroxyquinolinealuminum [0085]),
wherein the second electrode (17) is (‘common electrode’ [0056]) shared by the plurality of organic semiconductor devices (see also fig. 3),
wherein the first electrode (14c11/14c12) is independently included in each of the plurality of organic semiconductor devices (comprising a single 14c1x) [0114], and
wherein a distance between the first electrodes (14c11 and 14c12) [0114] of adjacent organic semiconductor devices of the plurality of organic semiconductor devices (each comprising a single 14c1x electrode) is larger than or equal to 2μm and smaller than or equal to 5 μm (inter-pixel electrode pitch of about 3.3 μm [0071]),
wherein, when the first compound is subjected to differential scanning calorimetry in such a manner that a first heating step is performed from 25 °C or lower, a temperature is kept for three minutes at a lower one of 450 °C and a temperature lower than a 3 % weight loss temperature (°C) measured with a thermogravimeter by 50 a cooling step is performed at a cooling rate of 40 °C/min or higher, the temperature is kept at 25 °C or lower for three minutes, and a second heating step is performed at a temperature rising rate of 40 °C/min or higher until the temperature reaches the keeping temperature after the first heating step, an exothermic peak is not observed in the cooling step and an exothermic peak and a melting point peak are not observed in the second heating step.
With respect to the underlined limitation(s) above, they have been considered as “product by process” limitation(s) – process steps that do not yield an identifiable structure in the product. Note that a “product by process” limitation is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made. See In re Thorpe et al. 227 USPQ 964 (CFAC, 1985) and the related case law cited therein, which makes it clear that it is the final product per se which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that, as here, an old or obvious product by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not. As stated in Thorpe, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969); Buono v. Yankee Maid Dress Corp., 77 F.2d 274, 279, 26 USPQ 57, 61 (2d. Cir. 1935. (See MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 3, Yamaguchi teaches the organic semiconductor device [see fig. 13B, 0114] of claim 2. Yamaguchi also teaches … to wherein in the second heating step in the differential scanning calorimetry, an exothermic peak of the first compound with an energy higher than or equal to 0 J/g and lower than or equal to 20 J/g is observed.
With respect to the underlined limitation(s) above, they have been considered as “product by process” limitation(s) – process steps that do not yield an identifiable structure in the product. Note that a “product by process” limitation is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made. See In re Thorpe et al. 227 USPQ 964 (CFAC, 1985) and the related case law cited therein, which makes it clear that it is the final product per se which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that, as here, an old or obvious product by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not. As stated in Thorpe, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969); Buono v. Yankee Maid Dress Corp., 77 F.2d 274, 279, 26 USPQ 57, 61 (2d. Cir. 1935. (See MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 4, Yamaguchi teaches the organic semiconductor device [see fig. 13B, 0114] of claim 1. Yamaguchi also teaches … in the second heating step in the differential scanning calorimetry, a baseline shift of the first compound to an endothermic side is observed and an endothermic peak due to the baselines shift is detected.
With respect to the underlined limitation(s) above, they have been considered as “product by process” limitation(s) – process steps that do not yield an identifiable structure in the product. Note that a “product by process” limitation is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made. See In re Thorpe et al. 227 USPQ 964 (CFAC, 1985) and the related case law cited therein, which makes it clear that it is the final product per se which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that, as here, an old or obvious product by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not. As stated in Thorpe, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969); Buono v. Yankee Maid Dress Corp., 77 F.2d 274, 279, 26 USPQ 57, 61 (2d. Cir. 1935. (See MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 5, Yamaguchi teaches the organic semiconductor device [see fig. 13B, 0114] of claim 1. Yamaguchi also teaches wherein the first layer (comprising 165 c1x) [0114, 0085] comprises an electron-transport region (space occupied by electron-transport layer [0114, 0085]), and wherein the electron-transport region (occupied by layer 165c1x) [0114] comprises the first compound (8-hydroxyquinolinealuminum [0085]).
Regarding claim 6, Yamaguchi teaches the organic semiconductor device [see fig. 13B, 0114] of claim 1. Yamaguchi also teaches … wherein heat treatment is performed after the first layer is formed.
With respect to the underlined limitation(s) above, they have been considered as “product by process” limitation(s) – process steps that do not yield an identifiable structure in the product. Note that a “product by process” limitation is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made. See In re Thorpe et al. 227 USPQ 964 (CFAC, 1985) and the related case law cited therein, which makes it clear that it is the final product per se which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that, as here, an old or obvious product by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not. As stated in Thorpe, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969); Buono v. Yankee Maid Dress Corp., 77 F.2d 274, 279, 26 USPQ 57, 61 (2d. Cir. 1935. (See MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 7, Yamaguchi teaches the organic semiconductor device [see fig. 13B, 0114] of claim 2. Yamaguchi also teaches … in the second heating step in the differential scanning calorimetry, a baseline shift of the first compound to an endothermic side is observed and an endothermic peak due to the baselines shift is detected.
With respect to the underlined limitation(s) above, they have been considered as “product by process” limitation(s) – process steps that do not yield an identifiable structure in the product. Note that a “product by process” limitation is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made. See In re Thorpe et al. 227 USPQ 964 (CFAC, 1985) and the related case law cited therein, which makes it clear that it is the final product per se which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that, as here, an old or obvious product by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not. As stated in Thorpe, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969); Buono v. Yankee Maid Dress Corp., 77 F.2d 274, 279, 26 USPQ 57, 61 (2d. Cir. 1935. (See MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 8, Yamaguchi teaches the organic semiconductor device [see fig. 13B, 0114] of claim 2. Yamaguchi also teaches wherein the first layer (comprising 165 c1x) [0114, 0085] comprises an electron-transport region (space occupied by electron-transport layer [0114, 0085]), and wherein the electron-transport region (occupied by layer 165c1x) [0114] comprises the first compound (8-hydroxyquinolinealuminum [0085]).
Regarding claim 9, Yamaguchi teaches the organic semiconductor device [see fig. 13B, 0114] of claim 2. Yamaguchi also teaches … wherein heat treatment is performed after the first layer is formed.
With respect to the underlined limitation(s) above, they have been considered as “product by process” limitation(s) – process steps that do not yield an identifiable structure in the product. Note that a “product by process” limitation is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made. See In re Thorpe et al. 227 USPQ 964 (CFAC, 1985) and the related case law cited therein, which makes it clear that it is the final product per se which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that, as here, an old or obvious product by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not. As stated in Thorpe, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969); Buono v. Yankee Maid Dress Corp., 77 F.2d 274, 279, 26 USPQ 57, 61 (2d. Cir. 1935. (See MPEP 2113).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument(s) that “Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner's characterization that the above feature is a product by process limitation... The recited feature … specifies measurement conditions under which the thermophysical properties of the first compound are evaluated. It does not define manufacturing steps by which the first compound is produced… Thus, claims 1 and 2 define the first compound by its thermal stability or amorphous nature, as measured under the conditions specified in the claims, and not by the process of its manufacture. Accordingly, claims 1 and 2 define a product characterized by its measurable physical properties, not as a product-by- process claim.” There is nothing in the claim language itself which links the thermophysical process with a physical characteristic of the finished product. That is, while claims 1 and 2 go into detail about a sequence applied to the product, there is nothing to suggest the system’s response is due to the presence, or absence, of a particular structural detail in the claimed product. For example, Applicant’s remarks suggest that the claimed process of claims 1 and 2 “define… the amorphous nature” (of the first compound), however, nowhere in claims 1 or 2 is an “amorphous” limitation claimed.
In order to definitively overcome the product-by-process arguments applied by Examiner throughout the rejection, Applicant would need to explicitly claim a structural detail of the finished product itself which is intrinsically linked to the claimed thermoelectric process. For example, Applicant would need to explicitly state that “…an energy of an exothermic peak observed in the cooling step is higher than or equal to 0 J/g and lower than or equal to 20 J/g, and an energy of an endothermic peak without a baseline shift observed in the second heating step is lower than or equal to 0 J/g and higher than or equal to -20 J/g, and the first compound is in an amorphous state…” .
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Remaining references made available on the PTO-892 form (of record) are considered relevant to the present disclosure because they all feature display devices with organic layers.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SEAN AYERS WINTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3308. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30 am - 7:00 pm (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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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.
/SEAN AYERS WINTERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2892 12/02/2025
/NORMAN D RICHARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2892