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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application No. 18/475,404 filed on March 27, 2026.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. These IDS has been considered.
Election/Restrictions
5. Applicant’s election of claims 9-15, drawn to device claims, Group I, in the reply filed on 03/27/2026 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)).
6. Claims 1-8, drawn to method, Group II, are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected method claims, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims Corrections
7. Claims 9, 12-13, 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: In the following, the claim should be recited to avoid indefiniteness due to lack of antecedent basis, and/or perform proper alignment along with the prior claim languages:
9. (Currently Amended) A flexible transparent electrode comprising:
a transparent polymer layer;
a silver nanowire network disposed on a surface of the transparent polymer layer and having at least a portion buried in the transparent polymer layer; and
MXene flakes attached to interwire junctions of
12. (Currently Amended) The flexible transparent electrode of claim 10, wherein the flexible transparent electrode contains the MXene flakes at a content of
13. (Currently Amended) An electroluminescent device comprising:
a first electrode and a second electrode spaced apart from each other;
a light-emitting layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode;
an electron transport layer disposed between the first electrode and the light-emitting layer; and
a hole transport layer disposed between the second electrode and the light-emitting layer, wherein the first electrode includes:
a transparent polymer layer;
a silver nanowire network disposed on a surface of the transparent polymer layer and having at least a portion buried in the transparent polymer layer; and
MXene flakes attached to interwire junctions of
15. (Currently Amended) The electroluminescent device of claim 13, wherein the first electrode contains the MXene flakes at a content of
Appreciate corrections are needed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
12. Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guiheen et al. (US 2009/0188697 A1) in view of Smith et al. (US 2022/0009199 A1).
Regarding independent claim 9, Guiheen et al. teaches a flexible transparent electrode (100, para [0019]-[0020]) comprising (Fig. 1):
a transparent polymer layer (108, para [0019]);
a silver nanowire network (AgNWs, para [0019]) disposed on a surface of the transparent polymer layer (108) and having at least a portion buried in the transparent polymer layer (108).
Guiheen et al. is explicitly silent of disclosing wherein, MXene flakes attached to interwire junctions of
Smith et al. discloses wherein (Fig. 6), MXene flakes (304 coated with MXene metal, para [0043]) attached to interwire junctions of silver nanowires (602, para [0040]) in the silver nanowire network.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching as taught by Smith et al., and apply MXene coated material having conductive properties on the AgNWs layer of Guiheen et al., in order to achieve higher conductivity (para [0043]) of the transparent electrode.
Regarding claim 10, Guiheen et al. and Smith et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 9 from which this claim depends.
Guiheen et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 1), the silver nanowire network (106) has a mesh structure (see figure below) of the silver nanowires (AgNWs, para [0022]) having an average diameter of 20 to 70 nm (range of about 40 to about 100 nm, para [0022] which overlaps the claimed range) and an average length of 10 to 40 µm (1 µm to about 20 µm, para [0022] which overlaps the claimed range).
PNG
media_image1.png
422
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to select the claimed diameter and length of the silver nanowires within the quoted range to optimize the result effective variable of the silver nanowires in order to increase total light transmittance. In addition, to an ordinary artisan practicing the invention, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen diameter/length of the silver nanowires or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen diameter/length is critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Smith et al. discloses wherein, each of the MXene flakes (metallized auxetic fabric) has a certain size or diameter (see para [0022], [0044]).
However, Smith et al. is explicitly silent of disclosing wherein, each of the MXene flakes or metallized auxetic fabric has the size of 2 to 5 µm. It would have been obvious to select intended ‘size of the MXene flakes’ to be within the quoted range of is 2 to 5 µm, to enhance conductivity of the transparent electrode. In addition, to an ordinary artisan practicing the invention, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed size or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen size or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen size is critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 11, Guiheen et al. and Smith et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 10 from which this claim depends.
Smith et al. discloses wherein (para [0041]) the MXene flakes (metallized auxetic material layer) are not covered with the transparent polymer layer so as to be exposed (metallized auxetic material layer partially embedded in a polymer, therefore, it is considered as exposed).
Regarding claim 12, Guiheen et al. and Smith et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 10 from which this claim depends.
The combination of Guiheen et al. and Smith et al. wherein, the flexible transparent electrode contains certain amount of the MXene flakes based on 1g of the silver nanowires (AgNWs).
However, Guiheen et al. and Smith et al. are explicitly silent of disclosing wherein the flexible transparent electrode contains the MXene flakes at a content of about 0.012 to 0.036 mg based on 1g of the silver nanowires (AgNWs). It would have been obvious to select intended ‘content of the MXene flakes’ to be within the quoted range of 0.012 to 0.036 mg, to order to enhance conductivity of the transparent electrode. In addition, to an ordinary artisan practicing the invention, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed content or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen content or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen content is critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
13. Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schicktanz et al. (US 2015/0236294 A1) in view of Guiheen et al. (US 2009/0188697 A1), and further in view of Smith et al. (US 2022/0009199 A1).
Regarding independent claim 13, Schicktanz et al. teaches an electroluminescent device comprising (Fig. 1):
a first electrode (110, para [0126]) and a second electrode (114, para [0126]) spaced apart from each other;
a light-emitting layer (118, para [0138]) disposed between the first electrode (110) and the second electrode (114);
an electron transport layer (116, para [0138]) disposed between the first electrode (110) and the light-emitting layer (118); and
a hole transport layer (120, para [0138]) disposed between the second electrode (114) and the light-emitting layer (118).
Schicktanz et al. is explicitly silent of disclosing wherein, the first electrode includes:
a transparent polymer layer;
a silver nanowire network disposed on a surface of the transparent polymer layer and having at least a portion buried in the transparent polymer layer; and
MXene flakes attached to interwire junctions of silver nanowires in the silver nanowire network.
Guiheen et al. teaches wherein, the first electrode (100, para [0019]-[0020]) comprising (Fig. 1):
a transparent polymer layer (108, para [0019]);
a silver nanowire network (106 AgNWs, para [0019]) disposed on a surface of the transparent polymer layer (108) and having at least a portion buried in the transparent polymer layer (108).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching as taught by Guiheen et al., and modify the transparent conductor of Schicktanz et al. including silver nanowires in the first electrode/anode, in order to having a total light transmittance of no less than about 60% (para [0020]).
Schicktanz et al. and Guiheen et al. are explicitly silent of disclosing wherein, MXene flakes attached to interwire junctions of silver nanowires in the silver nanowire network.
Smith et al. discloses wherein (Fig. 6), MXene flakes (304 coated with MXene metal, para [0043]) attached to interwire junctions of silver nanowires (602, para [0040]) in the silver nanowire network.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching as taught by Smith et al., and apply MXene coated material having conductive properties on the AgNWs layer of Schicktanz et al. and Guiheen et al., in order to achieve higher conductivity (para [0043]) of the transparent electrode.
Regarding claim 14, Schicktanz et al. and Guiheen et al. and Smith et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 13 from which this claim depends.
Guiheen et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 1), the silver nanowire network (106) has a mesh structure (see figure below) of the silver nanowires (AgNWs, para [0022]) having an average diameter of 20 to 70 nm (range of about 40 to about 100 nm, para [0022] which overlaps the claimed range) and an average length of 10 to 40 µm (1 µm to about 20 µm, para [0022] which overlaps the claimed range).
PNG
media_image1.png
422
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to select the claimed diameter and length of the silver nanowires within the quoted range to optimize the result effective variable of the silver nanowires in order to increase total light transmittance. In addition, to an ordinary artisan practicing the invention, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen diameter/length of the silver nanowires or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen diameter/length is critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Smith et al. discloses wherein each of the MXene flakes (metallized auxetic fabric) has a certain size or diameter (see para [0022], [0044]).
However, Smith et al. is explicitly silent of disclosing wherein, each of the MXene flakes or metallized auxetic fabric has the size of 2 to 5 µm. It would have been obvious to select intended ‘size of the MXene flakes’ to be within the quoted range of is 2 to 5 µm, to enhance conductivity of the transparent electrode. In addition, to an ordinary artisan practicing the invention, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed size or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen size or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen size is critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 15, Schicktanz et al. and Guiheen et al. and Smith et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 13 from which this claim depends.
The combination of Guiheen et al. and Smith et al. wherein, the flexible transparent electrode contains certain amount of the MXene flakes based on 1g of the silver nanowires (AgNWs).
However, Guiheen et al. and Smith et al. are explicitly silent of disclosing wherein the flexible transparent electrode contains the MXene flakes at a content of about 0.012 to 0.036 mg based on 1g of the silver nanowires (AgNWs). It would have been obvious to select intended ‘content of the MXene flakes’ to be within the quoted range of 0.012 to 0.036 mg, to order to enhance conductivity of the transparent electrode. In addition, to an ordinary artisan practicing the invention, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed content or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen content or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen content is critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Examiner’s Note
14. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2123, 2125, 2141.02 VI, and 2182.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns/lines in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIDARUL MAZUMDER whose telephone number is (571)272-8823. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
16. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Partridge can be reached at 571-270-1402. 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.
/DIDARUL A MAZUMDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights