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
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant's election, without traverse, of claims 8-11 in the “Response to Restriction Requirement” filed on 03/26/2026 is acknowledged and entered by the Examiner.
This office action consider claims 1-20 pending for prosecution, wherein claims 1-7 and 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration, and claims 8-11 are presented for examination.
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.
2. Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 10, the instant claim recites limitations in view intervening claim 9 and parent device claim 8, wherein the metes and bounds of the claimed method are vague and ill-defined as a result of uncertainty in the different boundaries and new limitations “wherein the first graphene layer is mixed within the first metal layer or the second metal layer” (Claim 10; emphasis added). The claim is indefinite because of the following:
i) The claim is indefinite because “wherein the first graphene layer is mixed within the first metal layer or the second metal layer” (Claim 10) is unclear and causes confusion. Intervening claim 9 recites that a first graphene layer is between the first metal layer and the second metal layer. Yet, claim 10 recites that the first graphene layer is mixed within the first metal layer or the second metal layer. It is not clear how the first graphene layer is both between the first metal and the second metal layer and mixed within the first metal layer or the second metal layer. If the first graphene layer is mixed within either of the first metal layer or the second metal layer, then it cannot also be between the first metal layer and the second metal layer. Therefore, the limitation of “wherein the first graphene layer is mixed within the first metal layer or the second metal layer” (Claim 10) is indefinite and unclear.
The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, whereby the claims are rendered indefinite. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 11, it is rejected under 112(b) because of their dependency status from claim 10.
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 of this title, 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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (30A; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
3. Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20180032189 A1; hereinafter Lee), in view of Chua et al. (US 20220254641 A1; hereinafter Chua).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a display device (see the entire document, specifically Fig. 1+; [0002+], and as cited below), comprising:
a substrate (SUB; see Figs. 6C in view of 8A, 9A; [0129]);
a thin film transistor (T6; [0137]) on the substrate (SUB);
a first electrode (AE; [0152]) connected to the thin film transistor (T6; [0137]);
a light emitting layer (EML; [0152]) on the first electrode (AE; [0152]) ; and
a second electrode (TS-CL1; see Figs. 6C in view of 8A, 9A; see [0134-0135, 0169-0170]; see Claim 1; where the touch detection unit is formed on layer TFE) on the light emitting layer (EML; see Figs. 6C in view of 8A, 9A; [0152]) and comprising a metal material and a graphene material (see [0135, 0169-0170], where the conductive layer is a multilayer structure comprising of graphene and metal material),
(see below for “wherein a Raman spectrum result of”) the second electrode (TS-CL1; see Figs. 6C in view of 8A, 9A; see [0134-0135, 0169-0170]; see Claim 1; where the conductive layer comprises of graphene and metal material) (see below for “has an Id/IG value of 0.03 or less and an I2D/IG value of 1 or more”).
As noted above, Lee does not expressly disclose “wherein a Raman spectrum result of the second electrode has an Id/IG value of 0.03 or less and an I2D/IG value of 1 or more”.
However, in the analogous art, Chua teaches embodiments disclosed herein include methods and apparatuses used to deposit graphene layer ([Abstract]), wherein (Figs. 1B, 2A; [0020-0023]) a graphene layer (109; Fig. 1B; [0020]) disposed over the interconnect, where the quality of graphene (e.g., defect density, etc.) may be measured by analyzing a Raman shift plot ([0023]), where the ideal graphene the D peak is zero (Fig. 2A, [0023]), a G peak is 1587 cm-1, and a 2D peak is 2686 cm-1, where the intensity peak of I.sub.D/I.sub.G is close to 0, and the intensity peak of I.sub.2D/I.sub.G is close to 2 (Fig. 2A, [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Chua’s Raman shift plot for a graphene layer into Lee’s device, and thereby, modified Lee’s (by Chua) device will have wherein a Raman spectrum result (in view of Chua Figs. 1B, 2A; [0020-0023]) of the second electrode (Lee TS-CL1; see Figs. 6C in view of 8A, 9A; see [0134-0135, 0169-0170]; see Claim 1; where the conductive layer comprises of graphene and metal material) has an Id/IG value of 0.03 or less (in view of Chua Figs. 1B, 2A; [0020-0023]; where in the ideal graphene the D peak is zero, where the intensity peak of I.sub.D/I.sub.G is close to 0) and an I2D/IG value of 1 or more (in view of Chua Figs. 1B, 2A; [0020-0023]; where the intensity peak of I.sub.2D/I.sub.G is close to 2).
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lee in the manner set forth above, at least, because this inclusion provides metric for the quality of graphene (e.g., defect density, etc.) may be measured by analyzing a Raman shift plot, where the intensity of the D peak over the intensity of the G peak (I.sub.D/I.sub.G) is desired to be close to 0, the intensity of the 2D peak over the G peak (I.sub.2D/I.sub.G) should be close to 2 in order to attain a high quality graphene layer (Chua [0023]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Lee (by Chua) teaches all of the features of claim 8.
Modified Lee (by Chua) further teaches wherein the second electrode (TS-CL1; see Figs. 6C in view of 8A, 9A; see [0134-0135, 0169-0170] where the conductive layer is a multilayer structure comprising of at least two of transparent conductive layers comprising of graphene and metal layers) comprises: a first metal layer (TS-CL1; see Figs. 6C in view of 8A, 9A; see [0134-0135, 0169-0170] where the conductive layer is a multilayer structure comprising of at least two of transparent conductive layers comprising of graphene and metal layers); a second metal layer (TS-CL1; see Figs. 6C in view of 8A, 9A; see [0134-0135, 0169-0170] where the conductive layer is a multilayer structure comprising of at least two of transparent conductive layers comprising of graphene and metal layers) (see below for “above”) the first metal layer (TS-CL1; see Figs. 6C in view of 8A, 9A; see [0134-0135, 0169-0170] where the conductive layer is a multilayer structure comprising of at least two of transparent conductive layers comprising of graphene and metal layers); and a first graphene layer (TS-CL1; see Figs. 6C in view of 8A, 9A; see [0134-0135, 0169-0170] where the conductive layer is a multilayer structure comprising of at least two of transparent conductive layers comprising of graphene and metal layers) (see below for “between”) the first metal layer (TS-CL1; see Figs. 6C in view of 8A, 9A; see [0134-0135, 0169-0170] where the conductive layer is a multilayer structure comprising of at least two of transparent conductive layers comprising of graphene and metal layers) and the second metal layer (TS-CL1; see Figs. 6C in view of 8A, 9A; see [0134-0135, 0169-0170] where the conductive layer is a multilayer structure comprising of at least two of transparent conductive layers comprising of graphene and metal layers).
As noted above, modified Lee (by Chua) does not expressly disclose “wherein the second electrode comprises: a first metal layer; a second metal layer above the first metal layer; and a first graphene layer between the first metal layer and the second metal layer” (emphasis added), though Lee does teach the conductive layer TS-CL1 is a multilayer structure comprising of at least two of transparent conductive layers comprising of graphene and metal layers (see [0134-0135, 0169-0170]). However, the rearrangement of parts such as a second metal layer above the first metal layer; and a first graphene layer between the first metal layer and the second metal layer is a matter of design choice (see (In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) See MPEP § 2144.04 VI. C. (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice)).
Furthermore, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “a first graphene layer between the first metal layer and the second metal layer” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without a first graphene layer between the first metal layer and the second metal layer). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “a first graphene layer between the first metal layer and the second metal layer” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Instead, paragraph [0017] of the instant disclosure discloses other possible options such as “The first graphene layer may be mixed within the first metal layer or the second metal layer”. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “a first graphene layer between the first metal layer and the second metal layer”. Thus, the claimed “a first graphene layer between the first metal layer and the second metal layer” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, the claimed limitation of “a first graphene layer between the first metal layer and the second metal layer” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “a first graphene layer between the first metal layer and the second metal layer” is not patentable over modified Lee (by Chua).
Regarding claim 10, modified Lee (by Chua) teaches all of the features of claim 9.
Modified Lee (by Chua) further teaches wherein the first graphene layer (TS-CL1; see Figs. 6C in view of 8A, 9A; see [0134-0135, 0169-0170] where the conductive layer is a multilayer structure comprising of at least two of transparent conductive layers comprising of graphene and metal layers) is mixed within (see section 2, above; 112(b) rejection) the first metal layer (TS-CL1; see Figs. 6C in view of 8A, 9A; see [0134-0135, 0169-0170] where the conductive layer is a multilayer structure comprising of at least two of transparent conductive layers comprising of graphene and metal layers) or the second metal layer (TS-CL1; see Figs. 6C in view of 8A, 9A; see [0134-0135, 0169-0170] where the conductive layer is a multilayer structure comprising of at least two of transparent conductive layers comprising of graphene and metal layers).
Furthermore, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the first graphene layer is mixed within the first metal layer or the second metal layer” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without wherein the first graphene layer is mixed within the first metal layer or the second metal layer). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein the first graphene layer is mixed within the first metal layer or the second metal layer” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Instead, paragraph [0021] of the instant disclosure discloses other possible options such as “The first graphene layer may be in contact with an upper surface of the first metal layer and a lower surface of the second metal layer, and the first graphene layer may not be mixed within the first metal layer and the second metal layer”. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “wherein the first graphene layer is mixed within the first metal layer or the second metal layer”. Thus, the claimed “wherein the first graphene layer is mixed within the first metal layer or the second metal layer” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, the claimed limitation of “wherein the first graphene layer is mixed within the first metal layer or the second metal layer” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein the first graphene layer is mixed within the first metal layer or the second metal layer” is not patentable over modified Lee (by Chua).
Regarding claim 11, modified Lee (by Chua) teaches all of the features of claim 10.
Modified Lee (by Chua) further teaches wherein the second electrode (TS-CL1; see Figs. 6C in view of 8A, 9A; see [0134-0135, 0169-0170] where the conductive layer is a multilayer structure comprising of at least two of transparent conductive layers comprising of graphene and metal layers) further comprises: a third metal layer (TS-CL1; see Figs. 6C in view of 8A, 9A; see [0134-0135, 0169-0170] where the conductive layer is a multilayer structure comprising of at least two of transparent conductive layers comprising of graphene and metal layers) (see below for “above”) the second metal layer (TS-CL1; see Figs. 6C in view of 8A, 9A; see [0134-0135, 0169-0170] where the conductive layer is a multilayer structure comprising of at least two of transparent conductive layers comprising of graphene and metal layers); and a second graphene layer (TS-CL1; see Figs. 6C in view of 8A, 9A; see [0134-0135, 0169-0170] where the conductive layer is a multilayer structure comprising of at least two of transparent conductive layers comprising of graphene and metal layers) (see below for “between”) the second metal layer and the third metal layer (TS-CL1; see Figs. 6C in view of 8A, 9A; see [0134-0135, 0169-0170] where the conductive layer is a multilayer structure comprising of at least two of transparent conductive layers comprising of graphene and metal layers).
As noted above, modified Lee (by Chua) does not expressly disclose “wherein the second electrode further comprises: a third metal layer above the second metal layer; and a second graphene layer between the second metal layer and the third metal layer” (emphasis added), though Lee does teach the conductive layer TS-CL1 is a multilayer structure comprising of at least two of transparent conductive layers comprising of graphene and metal layers (see [0134-0135, 0169-0170]). However, the rearrangement of parts such as a third metal layer above the second metal layer; and a second graphene layer between the second metal layer and the third metal layer is a matter of design choice (see (In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) See MPEP § 2144.04 VI. C. (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice)).
Furthermore, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “and a second graphene layer between the second metal layer and the third metal layer” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without and a second graphene layer between the second metal layer and the third metal layer). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “and a second graphene layer between the second metal layer and the third metal layer” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Instead, paragraph [0010] of the instant disclosure discloses other possible options such as “a third metal layer above the second metal layer; and a second graphene layer mixed within the third metal layer” and [0026] of the instant disclosure discloses other possible options such as “The second graphene layer may be mixed within the second metal layer or the third metal layer”. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “and a second graphene layer between the second metal layer and the third metal layer”. Thus, the claimed “and a second graphene layer between the second metal layer and the third metal layer” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, the claimed limitation of “and a second graphene layer between the second metal layer and the third metal layer” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “and a second graphene layer between the second metal layer and the third metal layer” is not patentable over modified Lee (by Chua).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Omar Mojaddedi whose telephone number is 313-446-6582. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m..
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, Julio J. Maldonado, can be reached on 571-272-1864. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/OMAR F MOJADDEDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2898