DETAILED ACTION
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- 11, 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), further in view of Ohshima (U.S. 12,520,637, filed as JP 2020/037932 on 10/7/2020, all references made to US patent for ease of reference).
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.
Sirowatka and Miu do not specifically teach a first transport layer and a second transport layer, the first transport layer between the emission layer and the first electrode and the second transport layer between the emission layer and the second electrode.
Ohshima teaches (see fig. 1) a first transport layer (first transport layer 3) and a second transport layer (second transport layer 6), the first transport layer between the emission layer (QD layers 4, 5) and the first electrode (first electrode 2) and the second transport layer between the emission layer (4, 5) and the second electrode (second electrode 7).
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 layering structure of Ohshima for the QD layer of Sirowatka and Miu to reduce the unevenly distributed charges and increase the lifespan of the QD emission layer, see col. 1.
The Examiner finds that upon further research it appears that the layer structure claimed is well known and utilized in the art.
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 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 and Ohshima, 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights