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
Status of Claims
1. Applicant's amendment of claims 1, 8, and 10 in “Claims - 07/07/2026” with “Amendment/Req. Reconsideration-After Non-Final Reject - 07/07/2026”, have been acknowledged by Examiner.
This office action considers claims 1-20 pending for prosecution, wherein claims 1-7 and 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration, and claims 8-11 are presented for examination.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
2. Applicant’s argument, in the “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” filed on 07/07/2026, see “In view of these amendments, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the §112 rejections” (remarks on page 7), has been considered and is persuasive.
In view of that along with the relevant amendment to claim 10, in the file “Claims” filed on 07/07/2026, the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection to claims 10-11 has been withdrawn.
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 Qin et al. (CN 107331794 A; hereinafter Qin; see attached Google translation), 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]);
auxiliary layers, wherein the auxiliary layers ({ECL, HCL}; [0152]) are above the light emitting layer (EML; [0152]), below the light emitting layer (EML; [0152]), or a combination thereof ({ECL/EML/HCL}; [0152]), and
a second electrode (CE; see Figs. 6C in view of 8A, 9A; see [0152, 0158]; where second electrode CE is a cathode) (see below for “comprising a metal material and a graphene material”),
As noted above, Lee does not expressly disclose “a second electrode comprising a metal material and a graphene material”.
However, in the analogous art, Qin teaches a flexible display panel ([Title]), wherein (Figs. 1a+, Page 1+) a flexible conductive structure (10; Fig. 1b; Pages 3-4) may be a cathode, where flexible conductive structure (10; Fig. 1b; Pages 3-4) comprises of layers (10: {101, 102, 101, 102, 101, 102, 101}; Fig. 1b; Pages 3-4), where layers (101) are graphene layers and flexible metal conductive layers (102), where there are at least four graphene layers (101) and three flexible metal conductive layers (102), etc., the number of the graphene layers (101) and the flexible metal conductive layers 102 is not limited herein, the number of the graphene layers (101) and the flexible metal conducting layers (102) and the thickness of each film layer can be set according to actual needs.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cathode structure and material of Lee with the cathode structure and material of Qin, and thereby, modified Lee’s (by Qin) device will have a second electrode (Lee CE; see Figs. 6C in view of 8A, 9A; see [0152, 0158]; where second electrode CE is a cathode in view of the structure and material of Qin 10: {101, 102, 101, 102, 101, 102, 101}; Fig. 1b; Pages 3-4) comprising a metal material and a graphene material (in view of the structure and material of Qin 10: {101, 102, 101, 102, 101, 102, 101}; Fig. 1b; Pages 3-4; where layers (101) are graphene layers and flexible metal conductive layers (102))
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lee in the manner set forth above, at least, because this inclusion provides a cathode structure comprising graphene layers and flexible metal conductive layers, where the flexible metal conductive layer are preferably made of a material with good flexibility and the graphene layer has better flexibility, the flexible metal conductive layer is arranged between any two graphene layers, so that the flexible conductive structure has better flexibility and has good electrical conductivity (Qin Abstract, Pages 3-4).
Modified Lee (by Qin) further teaches
wherein the second electrode (Lee CE; see Figs. 6C in view of 8A, 9A; see [0152, 0158]; where second electrode CE is a cathode in view of the structure and material of Qin 10: {101, 102, 101, 102, 101, 102, 101}; Fig. 1b; Pages 3-4) is directly on the light emitting layer or is directly on an uppermost auxiliary layer (Lee {ECL}; [0152]) of the auxiliary layers (Lee {ECL, HCL}; [0152]) when at least one of the auxiliary layers (Lee {ECL }; [0152]) is on the light emitting layer (Lee EML; [0152]), and
(see below for “a Raman spectrum result of”) the second electrode (Lee CE; see Figs. 6C in view of 8A, 9A; see [0152, 0157]) (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 Qin and Chua) device will have wherein a Raman spectrum result (in view of Chua Figs. 1B, 2A; [0020-0023]) of the second electrode (Lee CE; see Figs. 6C in view of 8A, 9A; see [0152, 0158]; where second electrode CE is a cathode in view of the structure and material of Qin 10: {101, 102, 101, 102, 101, 102, 101}; Fig. 1b; Pages 3-4) 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 Qin and Chua) teaches all of the features of claim 8.
Modified Lee (by Qin and Chua) further teaches wherein the second electrode (Lee CE; see Figs. 6C in view of 8A, 9A; see [0152, 0158]; where second electrode CE is a cathode in view of the structure and material of Qin 10: {101, 102, 101, 102, 101, 102, 101}; Fig. 1b; Pages 3-4) comprises:
a first metal layer (in view of Qin {102}; Fig. 1b; Pages 3-4);
a second metal layer (in view of Qin {102}; Fig. 1b; Pages 3-4) above the first metal layer (in view of Qin {102}; Fig. 1b; Pages 3-4); and
a first graphene layer (in view of Qin {101}; Fig. 1b; Pages 3-4) between the first metal layer (in view of Qin {102}; Fig. 1b; Pages 3-4) and the second metal layer (in view of Qin {102}; Fig. 1b; Pages 3-4).
Regarding claim 10, modified Lee (by Qin and Chua) teaches all of the features of claim 8.
Modified Lee (by Qin and Chua) further teaches wherein the second electrode (Lee CE; see Figs. 6C in view of 8A, 9A; see [0152, 0158]; where second electrode CE is a cathode in view of the structure and material of Qin 10: {101, 102, 101, 102, 101, 102, 101}; Fig. 1b; Pages 3-4) comprises:
a first metal layer (in view of Qin {102}; Fig. 1b; Pages 3-4);
a second metal layer (in view of Qin {102}; Fig. 1b; Pages 3-4) above the first metal layer (in view of Qin {102}; Fig. 1b; Pages 3-4); and
a first graphene layer (in view of Qin {101}; Fig. 1b; Pages 3-4) (see below for “mixed within”) the first metal layer (in view of Qin {102}; Fig. 1b; Pages 3-4) and the second metal layer (in view of Qin {102}; Fig. 1b; Pages 3-4).
As noted above, modified Lee (by Qin and Chua) does not expressly disclose “a first graphene layer mixed within the first metal layer and the second metal layer”.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “a first graphene layer mixed within 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 wherein a first graphene layer mixed within the first metal layer and the second metal layer). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “a first graphene layer mixed within 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 [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” and Claim 9 of the instant disclosure discloses other possible options such as “and a first graphene layer between the first metal layer and the second metal layer”. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “a first graphene layer mixed within the first metal layer and the second metal layer”. Thus, the claimed “a first graphene layer mixed within 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 mixed within 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 mixed within the first metal layer and the second metal layer” is not patentable over modified Lee (by Qin and Chua).
Regarding claim 11, modified Lee (by Qin and Chua) teaches all of the features of claim 8.
Modified Lee (by Qin and Chua) further teaches wherein the second electrode (Lee CE; see Figs. 6C in view of 8A, 9A; see [0152, 0158]; where second electrode CE is a cathode in view of the structure and material of Qin 10: {101, 102, 101, 102, 101, 102, 101}; Fig. 1b; Pages 3-4) further comprises:
a third metal layer (in view of Qin {102}; Fig. 1b; Pages 3-4) above the second metal layer (in view of Qin {102}; Fig. 1b; Pages 3-4); and
a second graphene layer (in view of Qin {101}; Fig. 1b; Pages 3-4) between the second metal layer (in view of Qin {102}; Fig. 1b; Pages 3-4) and the third metal layer (in view of Qin {102}; Fig. 1b; Pages 3-4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” on 07/07/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive, because of the following: the Applicant's amendment of claim 8 necessitated the shift in new grounds of rejection detailed in sections above. The shift in grounds of rejection renders the Applicant's arguments moot.
Please see the analysis of rejection for claims above.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights