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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/17/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by So et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0043925) (“So”).
Regarding Claim 1, So teaches a short wavelength infrared up-conversion device comprising: a first electrode (Figure 11, item 121) connected to an anode; an OLED layer (Figure 11, item 127) stacked on the first electrode and up-converting short-wavelength infrared ray incident through the first electrode into visible light; a blocking layer (Figure 11, item 122) located between the first electrode and an infrared-sensitive thin film layer to prevent hole injection into the infrared-sensitive thin film layer; an infrared-sensitive thin film layer (Figure 11, item 123) located between the blocking layer and the OLED layer, and injecting holes into the OLED layer from electron-hole pairs created by absorbing the short-wavelength infrared ray incident through the first electrode; and a transparent second electrode (Figure 11, item 128) stacked on the OLED layer and connected to a cathode, wherein the first electrode includes a transparent electrode unit, and a reflective electrode unit that reflects visible light incident from the OLED layer to the first electrode toward the second electrode.
Regarding Claim 2, So further teaches the transparent electrode unit includes a first transparent electrode unit (Figure 11, item 128) located below the reflective electrode unit, and a second transparent electrode unit (Figure 11, item 125) located above the reflective electrode unit.
Regarding Claim 3, So further teaches the reflective electrode unit is a metal thin film (¶0048).
Regarding Claim 4, So further teaches the metal includes silver (Ag), gold (Au), and aluminum (Al) (¶0048).
Regarding Claim 5, So further teaches the transparent electrode unit is made of metal oxide (¶0027).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over So as applied to Claims 1-5 above.
Regarding Claim 6, So teaches Claim 1 as indicated above. So further teaches a hole injection layer (¶0048) and a hole transport layer (¶0048) sequentially stacked in a direction from the first electrode to the second electrode. So does not specifically teach a combined thickness (d) of the blocking layer, the infrared sensitive thin film layer, the hole injection layer, and the hole transport layer is nd = 1/4λ (n = refractive index, d = thickness, λ = wavelength). However, So teaches optimizing the thickness of layers in the device (see ¶0032,0070, etc) in order to control the optical properties of the device. Absent a showing of criticality with respect to relative layer thicknesses (a result effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to adjust the thickness through routine experimentation in order to achieve desire light emission/absorption properties. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 7, So teaches Claim 2 as indicated above. So further teaches a hole injection layer (¶0048) and a hole transport layer (¶0048) sequentially stacked in a direction from the first electrode to the second electrode. So does not specifically teach a combined thickness (d) of the blocking layer, the infrared sensitive thin film layer, the hole injection layer, and the hole transport layer is nd = 1/4λ (n = refractive index, d = thickness, λ = wavelength). However, So teaches optimizing the thickness of layers in the device (see ¶0032,0070, etc) in order to control the optical properties of the device. Absent a showing of criticality with respect to relative layer thicknesses (a result effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to adjust the thickness through routine experimentation in order to achieve desire light emission/absorption properties. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 8, So teaches Claim 3 as indicated above. So further teaches a hole injection layer (¶0048) and a hole transport layer (¶0048) sequentially stacked in a direction from the first electrode to the second electrode. So does not specifically teach a combined thickness (d) of the blocking layer, the infrared sensitive thin film layer, the hole injection layer, and the hole transport layer is nd = 1/4λ (n = refractive index, d = thickness, λ = wavelength). However, So teaches optimizing the thickness of layers in the device (see ¶0032,0070, etc) in order to control the optical properties of the device. Absent a showing of criticality with respect to relative layer thicknesses (a result effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to adjust the thickness through routine experimentation in order to achieve desire light emission/absorption properties. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 9, So teaches Claim 4 as indicated above. So further teaches a hole injection layer (¶0048) and a hole transport layer (¶0048) sequentially stacked in a direction from the first electrode to the second electrode. So does not specifically teach a combined thickness (d) of the blocking layer, the infrared sensitive thin film layer, the hole injection layer, and the hole transport layer is nd = 1/4λ (n = refractive index, d = thickness, λ = wavelength). However, So teaches optimizing the thickness of layers in the device (see ¶0032,0070, etc) in order to control the optical properties of the device. Absent a showing of criticality with respect to relative layer thicknesses (a result effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to adjust the thickness through routine experimentation in order to achieve desire light emission/absorption properties. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 10, So teaches Claim 5 as indicated above. So further teaches a hole injection layer (¶0048) and a hole transport layer (¶0048) sequentially stacked in a direction from the first electrode to the second electrode. So does not specifically teach a combined thickness (d) of the blocking layer, the infrared sensitive thin film layer, the hole injection layer, and the hole transport layer is nd = 1/4λ (n = refractive index, d = thickness, λ = wavelength). However, So teaches optimizing the thickness of layers in the device (see ¶0032,0070, etc) in order to control the optical properties of the device. Absent a showing of criticality with respect to relative layer thicknesses (a result effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to adjust the thickness through routine experimentation in order to achieve desire light emission/absorption properties. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tyan et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0278067)
Wilson et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0353836)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK W TORNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-7534. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30-4:30 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
MARK W. TORNOW
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2891
/MARK W TORNOW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights