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 Arguments
Applicant argues that the amendments overcome the rejections under §§ 103 and 112. This is persuasive with respect to claims 1-3 and 5-18. Claims 19 and 20, however, are directed to product by process claims which are defined by the product produced and not the process used to produce the product. Here, the product produced by the process of Tseng in light of Cho would yield a product no different than the product of claims 19 and 20. Therefore, the rejection of these claims is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng et al. (US 2020/0259125) in light of Cho et al. (US 2007/0278482).
Claims 19-20: Tseng teaches a light emitting display device (Abst.; ¶ 0002), produced by a method comprising the steps of forming a plurality of functional organic layers by depositing ink for each layer sequentially on a first electrode (¶ 0015; Fig. 1) and annealing each layer as its deposited (¶ 0015).
Tseng fails to teach conducting both a first and second anneal on each layer. Cho teaches a method of forming organic semiconductor layers (Abst.; ¶ 0056) and explains that each organic layer is formed by depositing an ink on an electrode and that annealing can be conducted instead in two separate stages, wherein the first annealing step is a soft bake used to remove the solvent and the second annealing step is a curing step (¶ 0056). Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a two part annealing for each of the organic layers in Tseng in order to have first removed solvent from the layer before curing.
While Tseng fails to teach cooling with a first solvent, there is no evidence on the record that this step would produce a product materially different from the method of Tseng. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” MPEP 2113.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 and 5-18 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the cited art fairly teaches or suggests the claimed step of cooling the functional layer with a solvent by coating or soaking prior to depositing the next layer.
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 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 Robert A Vetere whose telephone number is (571)270-1864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571) 270-1034. 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.
/ROBERT A VETERE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
