DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 12, in view of 1 recites “wherein the inorganic electroluminescent material includes a number of quantum dots… wherein the electroluminescent material includes manganese-doped zinc sulfide”.
The disclosure recites using manganese doped zing sulfide as an inorganic phosphor, see p. 0119.
In the second embodiment, the emission layer 205 comprises an inorganic electroluminescent material, for example an inorganic phosphor. For example, the emission layer 205 may comprise zinc sulfide, denoted ZnS, doped with manganese, denoted ZnS:Mn. The ZnS:Mn material makes it possible to emit photons having a wavelength corresponding to a yellow or green color. Other inorganic electroluminescent materials may be envisaged according to the second embodiment. For example, the emission layer 205 may comprise indium-gallium nitride, InGaN, which comprises gallium nitride GaN and indium nitride, InN. The wavelength of the light emitted by such a material may vary from the ultraviolet domain to orange, as a function of an indium to gallium ratio. According to other examples, the emission layer 205 may comprise quantum dots based on cadmium selenide (CdSe), copper indium (CuIn), indium phosphide (InP) and/or lead selenide (PbSe).
The Examiner finds that there are no examples using ZnS:Mn as a quantum dot within the disclosure, only to be used as a phosphor. Furthermore, there are no examples of using ZnS:Mn as a quantum dot within an electroluminescent material.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites “the electroluminescent material is an electroluminescent organic polymer”. Dependent claims cannot redefine structures of independent claims. I.e. claim 13, read in its entirety recites “an emission layer that includes an inorganic electroluminescent material… wherein the electroluminescent material is an electroluminescent organic polymer”. The electroluminescent material cannot be defined as “inorganic” in claim 1 and “organic” in claim 13.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 13 contradicts claim 1, the electroluminescent material is defined as “inorganic” in claim 1 and “organic” in claim 13.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 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.
Claim 1, 4, 5, 9, 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sirowatka (U.S. 2018/0017224) in view of Miu (U.S. 2020/0263846).
Regarding claim 1, Sirowatka teaches a luminous device for an automotive vehicle (headlight or taillight see p. 0007), comprising a lighting module (light source 34) capable of projecting light rays that perform a lighting function, a luminous module (oled panel 32), and a control element (controller);
wherein the luminous module is at least partially transparent (transmittance of 45-80%, see p. 0021) by an arrangement such that emissions of the light rays emitted by the lighting module pass through the lighting module (see fig. 2), and
wherein the control element is capable of activating the luminous module when the at least one lighting module is deactivated (see p. 0023, low intensity mode, shown in figure 2),
wherein the luminous module includes
at least a partially transparent substrate (see p. 0021),
an emission layer that includes an electroluminescent material contained between a first electrode and a second electrode (cathode and anode, not shown see p. 0021) wherein another electroluminescent material (additional electroluminescent layer, see p. 0022) is an electroluminescent material.
Sirowatka does not specifically teach that the electroluminescent material is inorganic and comprises a number of quantum dots where a color of light emission is a function of a size of the quantum dots.
Miu teaches that the electroluminescent material is inorganic (inorganic, see alloyed nanocrystals) and comprises a number of quantum dots (see p. 0059, electroluminescent material is molded layer of quantum dots) where a color of light emission is a function of a size of the quantum dots (see p. 0043-0047).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used the inorganic quantum dots as taught by Miu for the electroluminescent layer of Sirowatka as quantum dots enable greater styling freedom by being painted or molded and provide higher CRI capabilities, see p. 0050-0059 of Miu.
The Examiner notes that the limitation “where a color of light emission is a function of a size of the quantum dots” is not a listed structure, but a description of a quality of quantum dots. I.e. the claim does not set forth the color emitted nor the size of the quantum dots.
Regarding claim 4, Sirowatka teaches the luminous module is capable of emitting light rays in at least one luminous pattern (see fig. 2, 3), the luminous module being arranged so that
Regarding claim 5, Sirowatka teaches the luminous module is arranged inside a lens of an optical system of the at least one lighting module (lens 28).
Regaridng claim 9, Sirowatka teaches wherein the luminous module includes an at least partially transparent substrate (transmissive substrate 33), an emission layer (EL material) including an electroluminescent material contained between a first electrode and a second electrode (cathode and anode, not shown see p. 0021), the first electrode being contained between the substrate layer and the emission layer, wherein the control element is capable of controlling a voltage source capable of applying a voltage between the first electrode and the second electrode, so that the emission layer emits light rays toward the outside of the luminous module (see p. 0021, response to electrical signal).
Regarding claim 10, Sirowatka does not teach that the first electrode, the second electrode and the emission layer each have a thickness of less than 10 micrometers, in particular less than one micrometer.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have optimized the thickness of the electrodes and the emission layer. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456.
It is well settled that a prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted "where the results of optimizing a variable, which was known to be result effective, [are] unexpectedly good." In re Antonie, 559 F.2d at 620, 195 USPQ at 8-9 “However, even though applicant's modification results in great improvement and utility over the prior art, it may still not be patentable if the modification was within the capabilities of one skilled in the art.” Aller 456.
Specifically, the more the thickness is reduced for the electroluminescent layer of Sirowatka, the less material and cost of manufacture will be exhibited. Furthermore, the reduction of the thickness reduces overall weight and size of the system.
Regarding claim 11, Sirowatka teaches wherein the luminous module includes an at least partially transparent protective layer for example made from a light transparent material, the second electrode
Regarding claim 12, Sirowatka and Miu does not teach that the electroluminescent material is an inorganic electroluminescent material, in particular an inorganic electroluminescent material comprising manganese-doped zinc sulfide.
The materials are alternative electroluminescent structures well known in the art as equivalents and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have substituted one for the other. Evidence that these are equivalents known in the art presents strong evidence of obviousness in substituting one for the other. Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ at 750.
The Examiner includes “Electroluminescence”, published 11/23/2021 which establishes thin film zinc sulfide doped with manganese as an EL material that is an equivalent to an OLED known in the art. The Examiner has included Hubbard (U.S. 12,077,698) which establishes that ZnS:Mn is a well known quantum dot structure used as an electroluminescement material, see example 6 in the disclosure.
Regarding claim 13, Sirowatka teaches that the electroluminescent material is an organic electroluminescent polymer (OLED).
Regarding claim 14, Sirowatka does not teach that the first electrode, the second electrode and the emission layer each have a thickness of less than one micrometer.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have optimized the thickness of the electrodes and the emission layer. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456.
It is well settled that a prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted "where the results of optimizing a variable, which was known to be result effective, [are] unexpectedly good." In re Antonie, 559 F.2d at 620, 195 USPQ at 8-9 “However, even though applicant's modification results in great improvement and utility over the prior art, it may still not be patentable if the modification was within the capabilities of one skilled in the art.” Aller 456.
Specifically, the more the thickness is reduced for the electroluminescent layer of Sirowatka, the less material and cost of manufacture will be exhibited. Furthermore, the reduction of the thickness reduces overall weight and size of the system.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sirowatka in view Miu, further in view of Dubosc (U.S. 8,998,467).
Regarding claim 6, Sirowatka does not specifically teach that the luminous module is arranged on an outer lens of the luminous device.
Dubosc teaches that the luminous module is arranged on an outer lens of the luminous device (see col. 1 lines 65-col. 2 lines 20, arranged on glass; see OLED 30 on inner surface of 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used the luminous module of Sirowatka directly on the lens 28 as taught by Dubosc to reduce optical gaps in the structure, and to prevent the need of an additional glass sheet for mounting.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J PEERCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6570. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4pm 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, James Greece can be reached on (571) 272-3711. 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.
/Matthew J. Peerce/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875