DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed 05/22/26.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shin et al. (US 2021/0066617 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 02/25/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 1-10, 12-16, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shin et al. (US 2021/0066617 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 02/25/26 is NOT overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shin et al. (US 2021/0066617 A1).
Regarding Claims 1-10, 12-14, 16, and 18-20, Shin et al. discloses an organic electroluminescent (EL) device (light-emitting device) comprising the following layers: first electrode (anode) (110), interlayer (130), and second electrode (cathode) (150) (Fig. 1); the interlayer comprises the following sequence of layers: hole-transporting region, light-emitting layer, and electron-transporting region ([0120]). The hole-transporting region comprises a hole-injecting layer and a hole-transporting layer ([0386]); the electron-transporting layer comprises a bilayer comprising an electron-transporting layer and an electron-injecting layer ([0260]). The electron-injecting layer comprises a mixture of KI and Yb (co-deposited, of any relative weight ratio) ([0296]); the electron-transporting layer comprises at least one “π electron-deficient nitrogen-containing C1-C60 cyclic group” such as the following in further combination with metal-containing materials such as Liq ([0262], [0287]):
PNG
media_image1.png
336
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 64) (first compound) such that X1-3 = N, a1 = a2 = 0, Ar1 = Ar2 = unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (naphthyl), a3 = 1, L3 = unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenylene), and Ar3 = unsubstituted C9 heterocyclic group (quinolinyl) (electron-transporting group) of Applicant’s Formula I. Shin et al. further discloses that the cathode comprises Mg, which can be in combination with a variety of other materials ([0300]); the anode is electrically connected to a source or drain electrode of a thin-film transistor ([0015]). Shin et al. discloses an electronic apparatus comprising the organic EL device, further comprising a color filter ([0312]). There exists capping layers deposited outside of the electrodes ([0302]).
Regarding Claim 15, notice that defining the second electrode (cathode) to encompass the layer (of any arbitrary thickness) comprising Mg and any directly adjacent portion of the electron-injecting layer (of any arbitrary thickness) which does not comprise any Mg would inherently result in the wt% as recited in the claim.
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.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US 2021/0066617 A1).
Shin et al. discloses the organic electroluminescent (EL) device (light-emitting device) of Claim 1 as shown above in the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) rejection. Shin et al. discloses the following first compound:
PNG
media_image1.png
336
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 64). Shin et al. discloses that such compounds are encompassed by the following formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
164
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0274]) where R611-613 = independently C3-60 carbocyclic group (among others) such as phenyl and naphthyl ([0268], [0280], [0353]-[0354], [0364]). It would have been obvious to modify compound ET27 as disclosed by Shin et al. such that the resulting compound corresponds to ET2 as recited in the claim. The motivation is provided by the fact that the modify merely involves an exchange of one group (naphthyl) for a functional equivalent (another aryl, i.e., phenyl) selected from a highly finite list of viable substituent groups as taught by Shin et al. (and easily envisioned from the scope of its general formula), thus rendering the production predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is allowed.
The closet prior art is provided by Shin et al. (US 2021/0066617 A1), which discloses an organic electroluminescent (EL) device (light-emitting device) comprising the following layers: first electrode (anode) (110), interlayer (130), and second electrode (cathode) (150) (Fig. 1); the interlayer comprises the following sequence of layers: hole-transporting region, light-emitting layer, and electron-transporting region ([0120]). The hole-transporting region comprises a hole-injecting layer and a hole-transporting layer ([0386]); the electron-transporting layer comprises a bilayer comprising an electron-transporting layer and an electron-injecting layer ([0260]). The electron-injecting layer comprises a mixture of KI and Yb (co-deposited, of any relative weight ratio) ([0296]); the electron-transporting layer comprises at least one “π electron-deficient nitrogen-containing C1-C60 cyclic group” such as the following in further combination with metal-containing materials such as Liq ([0262], [0287]):
PNG
media_image1.png
336
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 64) (first compound). Shin et al. further discloses that the cathode comprises Mg, which can be in combination with a variety of other materials ([0300]); the anode is electrically connected to a source or drain electrode of a thin-film transistor ([0015]). Shin et al. discloses an electronic apparatus comprising the organic EL device, further comprising a color filter ([0312]). There exists capping layers deposited outside of the electrodes ([0302]). However, it is the position of the Office that neither Shin et al. singly nor in further combination with any other prior art discloses the light-emitting device as recited in the claim, particularly in regards to the nature of the materials comprising the capping layers.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant argues on pages 15-17 the deficiencies of the previously cited prior art in view of then newly amended claim. However, the arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Notice that compound ET27 as disclosed by Shin et al. can easily bypass the newly added condition as recited in Claim 1 as alternative assignments of Ar1-3 of Formula 1 can be made (i.e., when Ar1-2 are naphthyl groups instead; see above rejection).
Furthermore, in regards to Claim 11, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as set forth above.
Conclusion
13. 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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
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, Jennifer A Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights