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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment dated 09/02/2025, in which claim 1 was amended, claims 4-5, 7, 10-11, 14-16 were cancelled, claims 25-36 were withdrawn, claim 37-38 were added, has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 38 is 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.
Regarding claim 38, claim 38 recites the limitation “the fullerene”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of this Action, the above limitation of claim 38 will be interpreted and examined as –fullerene--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, 12-13, 17-19, 23-24, 37-38 are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US Pub. 20190207139) in view of Helander et al. (WO2017100944) and Kim et al. (US Pub. 20190165304).
Regarding claim 1, Zhao et al. discloses in Fig. 1, paragraph [0003], [0008]-[0022], [0029]-[0036], [0039], [0044], [0046], [0050] an opto-electronic device having a plurality of layers, comprising:
a first electrode [first electrode is an Ag layer stacked with an ITO layer];
a second electrode [paragraph [0029], “the electrode comprises a first layer 1 and a second layer 2 arranged in a stacked manner, the first layer 1 is an alloy layer of Ag:Mg with a thickness of 13 nm. The mass percentage of Mg is 10%. The second layer is Yb layer with a thickness of 1 nm”; paragraph [0030] “Yb(1 nm)/Ag:10% Mg(13 nm)”]; and
at least one semiconducting layer [organic light-emitting layer] between the first and second electrodes [paragraph [0018], [0030]-0036]];
wherein the second electrode comprises a lower section [2] and an upper section [1] distinct from the lower section [2], wherein the lower section [2] is between the upper section [1] and the at least one semiconducting layer [organic light-emitting layer] and proximate to the at least one semiconducting layer [organic light-emitting layer][paragraph [0018], “The organic electroluminescent device of the present invention comprises a first electrode, an organic light-emitting layer and a second electrode arranged in a stacked manner, wherein, the second electrode is the above-mentioned electrode, and the second layer thereof is disposed adjacent to the organic light-emitting layer”, paragraph [0030] “an organic electroluminescent device, Ag/ITO(20 nm)/HATCN(20 nm)/NPB (40 nm)/mCBP:10 wt % Ir(ppy)3(30 nm)/TPBi(50 nm)/Yb(1 nm)/Ag:10% Mg(13 nm)/ITO(20 nm)”];
wherein the lower section [2] comprises Yb [paragraph [0029], “the second layer is Yb layer with a thickness of 1 nm”] and the upper section [1] comprises a Mg alloy [the first layer 1 is an alloy layer of Ag:Mg];
wherein a concentration of the Yb in the lower section [2] exceeds a concentration of the Yb in the upper section [1][Yb vs. Ag:Mg].
Zhao et al. fails to disclose
the upper section comprises a Yb-containing Mg alloy.
Helander et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3C, paragraph [0051], [0056], [0063]-[0064], [0072]-[0079]
the upper section [upper portion of 210] or [220] comprises a Yb-containing Mg alloy [paragraph [0051] “electrode 210 may comprise…a Mg:Yb alloy”].
For further support for an upper section comprises a Yb-containing Mg alloy, Kim et al. is cited.
Kim et al. discloses in Fig. 5E, Fig. 6C, paragraph [0109]
the upper section [180 or 280] comprises a Yb-containing Mg alloy.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Helander et al. and Kim et al. into the method of Zhao et al. to include the upper section comprises a Yb-containing Mg alloy. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Zhao et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable material to form upper section comprising an alkali earth metal alloy. Further, Mg:Yb alloy is an alkali earth metal alloy containing Mg. Therefore, it would have been obvious to select it based on it suitability for use as the alkali earth metal alloy material in the device of Zhao et al. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 2, Helander et al. discloses in paragraph [0051]
wherein a concentration of the Yb in the second electrode [210] comprises a non-zero amount of up to 35 vol. % [Mg:Yb alloy having a composition range of between about 1 :10 and 10:1 by volume or by atomic composition ratio].
In addition, Applicant has not provided criticality of the claimed range. It would have been obvious to modify Helander et al., Kim et al. and Zhao to provide the claimed range. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Helander et al., Kim et al. and Zhao in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here 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, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claim 3, Zhao et al. discloses in paragraph [0015]-[0016]
wherein a thickness of the second electrode [1 and 2] is between about 6 nm and about 35 nm [“the first layer has a thickness of 0.5 nm-30 nm”, “the second layer has a thickness of 0.5 nm-10 nm”. Therefore, a thickness of the second electrode is between (0.5+0.5) nm and (30+10) nm)].
Helander et al. discloses in paragraph [0067]-[0068]
wherein a thickness of the second electrode [210] is between about 6 nm and about 35 nm [thickness of 210 is greater than about 5 nm].
Regarding claim 6, Helander et al. discloses in paragraph [0051] wherein a concentration of the Yb in the upper section [upper portion of 210] comprises a non- zero amount of up to 10 vol. % of the upper section [upper portion of 210][electrode 210 is formed of a Mg:Yb alloy having a composition range of between about 1 :10 and 10:1 by volume or by atomic composition ratio].
In addition, Applicant has not provided criticality of the claimed range. It would have been obvious to modify Helander et al., Kim et al. and Zhao to provide the claimed range. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Helander et al., Kim et al. and Zhao in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here 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, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claims 8-9, Zhao et al. discloses in Fig. 1, paragraph [0015]-[0017]
wherein a thickness of the lower section [2] is between about 1 nm and about 5 nm [0.5 nm-10 nm; 0.5 nm-2 nm];
wherein a thickness of the upper section [1] is between about 5 nm and about 30 nm [0.5 nm-30 nm].
Helander et al. discloses in paragraph [0068]
wherein a thickness of the upper section [220] is between about 5 nm and about 30 nm [greater than about 1 nm].
Helander et al. discloses in Fig. 3B and paragraph [0086] that a thickness of an interface section/ nucleation promoting coating [211] of the lower section [210] is greater than about 1 monolayer, greater than about 10 monolayers, or more of fullerene. Paragraph [0016] discloses the fullerene comprises at least one of C60, C70. Thus, it appears Helander et al. suggests a thickness of an interface section/ nucleation promoting coating [211] of the lower section [210] is greater than 1nm because diameter of C60, C70 is approximately 1nm.
In addition, Applicant has not provided any criticality of the claimed range. It would have been obvious to modify Helander et al., Kim et al. and Zhao to provide the claimed range. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Helander et al., Kim et al. and Zhao in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here 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, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claims 12-13, Zhao et al. fails to disclose
wherein the second electrode further comprises a fullerene;
wherein a concentration of the fullerene in the second electrode comprises a non-zero amount of up to 15 vol.%.
Helander et al. discloses in Fig. 2, Fig. 3C, Fig. 3G, paragraph [0053]-[0054], [0058]-[0059], [0087]-[0088], [00149]
wherein the second electrode [210] further comprises a fullerene [311];
wherein a concentration of the fullerene in the second electrode [210] comprises a non-zero amount of up to 15 vol. %.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Helander et al. into the method of Zhao et al. to include wherein the second electrode further comprises a fullerene; wherein a concentration of the fullerene in the second electrode comprises a non-zero amount of up to 15 vol.% The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Zhao et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing nucleation promoting coating for the deposition of magnesium alloy [paragraph [0085] of Helander et al.].
In addition, Applicant has not provided any criticality of the claimed range. It would have been obvious to modify Helander et al., Kim et al. and Zhao to provide the claimed range. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Helander et al., Kim et al. and Zhao in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here 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, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claims 17 and 19, Zhao et al. discloses in paragraph [0029]-[0030]
wherein the lower section [2] further comprises an interface section [lower portion of 2] arranged to be in physical contact with the at least one semiconducting layer [TPBi, hole blocking layer].
Zhao et al. fails to disclose
wherein the interface section further comprises Mg.
Helander et al. discloses in Fig. 2, Fig. 3C, Fig. 3G, paragraph [0051], paragraph [0085]-[0088]
wherein the lower section [lower portion of 210] further comprises an interface section [section of 210 containing 311] arranged to be in physical contact with the at least one semiconducting layer [160];
wherein the interface section [section of 210 containing 311] further comprises Mg [layer 210 is formed of combination of Mg and Yb or a Mg:Yb alloy. Thus, the interface section must comprise Mg][paragraph [0088]].
Kim et al. also discloses in Fig. 5E, paragraph [0089]
wherein the interface section [171] comprises Mg.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Helander et al. and Kim et al. into the method of Zhao et al. to include wherein the interface section further comprises Mg. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Zhao et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable metal material included in the interface section to provide stable electrode when driven for a long time, and increase the lifespan of the organic stack and/or to provide an electrode having desired work function [paragraph [0039] of Zhao et al., paragraph [0103]-[0104] of Kim et al.]. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 18, Zhao et al. fails to disclose
wherein a thickness of the interface section is between about 1 nm and about 5 nm.
Helander et al. discloses in Fig. 3B and paragraph [0086] that a thickness of an interface section/ nucleation promoting coating [211] of the lower section [210] is greater than about 1 monolayer, greater than about 10 monolayers, or more of fullerene. Paragraph [0016] discloses the fullerene comprises at least one of C60, C70. Thus, it appears that Helander et al. suggests a thickness of an interface section/ nucleation promoting coating [211] of the lower section [210] is greater than 1nm because diameter of C60, C70 is approximately 1nm.
Kim et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 5B, paragraph [0066]
wherein a thickness of the interface section [171] is between about 1 nm and about 5 nm [10 Å to approximately 30 Å].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Helander et al. and Kim et al. into the method of Zhao et al. to include wherein a thickness of the interface section is between about 1 nm and about 5 nm. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Zhao et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable thickness of the interface section.
In addition, Applicant has not provided any criticality of the claimed range. It would have been obvious to modify Zhao et al., Helander et al. and Kim et al. to include the claimed range for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation to obtain sufficient thickness for its intended purpose. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here 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, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claims 23-24, Helander et al. discloses in paragraph [0016]
wherein the fullerene comprises at least one of Cn, where 50 < n < 250;
wherein n is selected from at least one of 60, 70, 72, 75, 76, 78, 80, 82, 84 and any combination of any of these [60, 70, 76, 84].
Regarding claim 37, Helander et al. discloses in Fig. 3C
wherein a concentration of fullerene in the lower section [lower portion of 210] exceeds a concentration of the fullerene in the upper section [upper portion of 210].
Regarding claim 38, Zhao et al. discloses in paragraph [0029]
wherein the upper section [1] is substantially devoid of fullerene.
Helander et al. discloses in Fig. 3C, paragraph [0087]-[0088]
wherein the upper section [upper portion of 210] is substantially devoid of fullerene [311].
Kim et al. also discloses in Fig. 6C
wherein the upper section [280] is substantially devoid of fullerene.
Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US Pub. 20190207139) in view of Helander et al. (WO2017100944) and Kim et al. (US Pub. 20190165304) as applied to claim 17 above and further in view of Ozdas et al. (“Superconductivity and cation-vacancy ordering in the rare-earth fulleride Yb2.75 C60”, Nature 375, 126–129 (1995)) and Cao et al. (“Investigation of ytterbium fulleride compounds”, Appl. Phys. A 70, 223–225 (2000)).
Regarding claims 20-22, Zhao et al., Helander et al. and Kim et al. fails to disclose
wherein the interface section comprises ytterbium fulleride;
wherein a chemical state of Yb in the interface section comprises at least one of Yb2+ and Yb3+;
wherein the ytterbium fulleride in the interface section has a chemical formula YbxCy, wherein 2 ≤ x ≤ 3 and 50 ≤y≤84.
However, Helander et al. discloses in paragraph [0051] that layer 210 is formed of Yb or combination of Mg and Yb or a Mg:Yb alloy. Helander et al. further discloses in Fig. 3B, Fig. 3C, paragraph [0084]-[0087], the interface section comprises fulleride and metal material of 210. Thus, Helander et al. discloses the interface section comprises both Yb and fulleride.
Ozdas et al. discloses in Abstract that ytterbium fulleride Yb2.75C60 which is a material comprises both Yb and fulleride and represented by the claimed chemical formula YbxCy, wherein 2 ≤ x ≤ 3 and y=60, exhibits remarkable physical properties, including superconductivity at record high temperatures for organic compounds.
Cao et al. discloses Yb2C60, Yb2.75C60 and Yb3C60, which represented by the claimed chemical formula YbxCy, wherein 2 ≤ x ≤ 3 and y=60, exhibits similar properties, including superconductivity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Ozdas et al. and Cao et al. into the method of Zhao et al., Helander et al. and Kim et al. to include wherein the interface section comprises ytterbium fulleride; wherein a chemical state of Yb in the interface section comprises at least one of Yb2+ and Yb3+; wherein the ytterbium fulleride in the interface section has a chemical formula YbxCy, wherein 2 ≤ x ≤ 3 and 50 ≤y≤84. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Zhao et al., Helander et al. and Kim et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable fulleride compound exhibits remarkable physical properties, including superconductivity at record high temperatures for organic compounds. In addition, ytterbium fulleride Yb2C60, Yb2.75C60 and Yb3C60 are known to have both Yb and fulleride and therefore it would have been obvious to select them based on their suitability for use as a material for forming the interface section comprises both Yb and fulleride in the device of Zhao et al., Helander et al. and Kim et al. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, 12-13, 17-24, 37-38 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection and 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.
Overall, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The claims stand rejected and the Action is made FINAL.
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 SOPHIA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1686. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, BRITT D HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/SOPHIA T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights