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 .
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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 28, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on January 28, 2026.
Claims 1, 6 and 8 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claim 7 has been cancelled. Claim 3 had been cancelled previously.
Claims 1, 2, 4 – 6, and 8 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed January 28, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 6, and 9 – 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fadhel as set forth in the office action filed November 28, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed January 28, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fadhel in view of Jankus as set forth in the office action filed November 28, 2025. Claim 7 has been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, file January 28, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fadhel in view of Kim 2 as set forth in the office action filed November 28, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Tables 1 – 3 of the Jankus reference cited by the Examiner describes only compositions in which Yb is present in an amount greater than or equal to that of the KI compound and that these tables define the compositions in terms of volume percent. Given that Yb, has a significantly higher density than the KI compound, it would be expected that the weight percent of Yb would be greater than the weight percent of KI, as opposed to the claimed relationship in which the parts by weight of the alkali metal-containing compound are greater than the parts by weight of the rare earth metal. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Jankus teaches that the rare earth metal may be present in an amount of 10 to 98 vol-% and that the alkaline earth metal may be present in an amount of 2 to 90 vol-% ([0026]). Using the density of Yb as 6.9 g/cm3 and the density of KI (a preferred alkali metal halide disclosed in [0078]) as 3.12 g/cm3, the mass percentage of the corresponding components can be calculated to be between 20 – 99 wt% Yb and 1 – 80% KI, which overlaps with the claimed range. To the extent that Applicant argues all the Examples disclose Yb present in a higher amount than KI, Examiner notes that the invention of the prior art is not limited to or defined by only those embodiments disclosed in the Examples. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 424 (CCPA 1971).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4 – 6, and 8 – 20 are 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.
Claims 1 and 6 have been amended to require that the electron transport region further comprises an electron injection layer, the electron injection layer comprises a rare earth metal and an alkali metal-containing compound and the parts by weight of the alkali metal-containing compound are greater than the parts by weight of the rare earth metal, each based on 100 parts by weight of the electron injection layer. Applicant cites [0135 – 0136] as support for the claimed limitations. In paragraph [0136] of the specification as filed, it teaches that the rare earth metal may be included in an amount of about 10 parts by weight to about 30 parts by weight of the electron injection layer. This is seen as a narrower range than that currently claimed, which is reasonably interpreted to include amounts significantly below 10 parts by weight and amounts between 30 parts by weight and 49.9 parts by weight. Therefore, the amendments do not appear to be supported by the specification as filed and appear to constitute new matter.
Claims 2, 4, 5, and 8 – 20 are rejected as being dependent on claims 1 and 6.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4 – 6, and 8 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fadhel (US20160322568A1) in view of Jankus (US20190013492A1).
As per claims 1, 2, 4 – 6, and 8 – 17, Fadhel teaches:
A light-emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, and an interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode and comprising an emission layer, wherein the interlayer further comprises an electron transport region between the emission layer and the second electrode, wherein the first electrode comprises an anode, the second electrode comprises a cathode, the interlayer further comprises a hole transport region between the emission layer and the first electrode, the hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission auxiliary layer, an electron blocking layer or any combination thereof, and the electron transport region comprises a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, or any combination thereof, wherein the electron transport layer and the emission layer are in direct contact with each other ([0052]: “FIG. 2 shows a stack of an anode (20), a hole injecting and transporting layer (21), a hole transporting layer (22) which can also aggregate the function of electron blocking, a light emitting layer (23), an ETL (24), and a cathode (25).”)
Wherein the electron transport region comprises an electron transport layer, and the electron transport layer comprises a mixture of a first compound represented by Formula 1 and a second compound represented by Formula 2, wherein the second compound comprises at least one π electron-deficient nitrogen-containing C1 – C60 cyclic group
PNG
media_image1.png
232
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
214
464
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Fadhel teaches at least one electron transport matrix compound comprising at least one phosphine oxide group (Abstract). Specific examples of suitable phosphine oxide compounds taught by Fadhel include
PNG
media_image3.png
178
412
media_image3.png
Greyscale
in [0057], which reads on Formula 1 wherein X11 is O; L11 to L13 are a single bond; a11 to a13 are 1; n11 is an integer of 1; A11 is a π-electron rich C10 cyclic group; A12 and A13 are both a π-electron rich C6 cyclic group; R11 to R13 are hydrogen; Ar11 and Ar12 are linked to each other via an unsubstituted C10 arylene group. This compound does not contain a π electron-deficient nitrogen-containing C1 – C60 cyclic group as required by claim 9. This compound is of Formula 1-2 in claim 11 and Formula 1-14 in claim 12. Another compound taught by Fadhel is
PNG
media_image4.png
268
424
media_image4.png
Greyscale
in [0057], which reads on Formula 2 wherein X21 is O; L21 and L23 are single bonds; L22 is a π-electron rich C6 cyclic group, namely a benzene group; Ar21 and Ar23 are both a π-electron rich C6 cyclic group, namely a benzene group; Ar22 is a π electron-deficient nitrogen-containing C22 cyclic group, which is a pyridine group fused with four benzene groups as required by claim 15, namely a benzoacridine group as required by claim 16; R21 and R23 are hydrogen; R22 is an unsubstituted alkyoxy group. This compound meets condition B-2 of claim 10. This compound is of Formula 2-1 in claim 11, wherein Z21 is a non-bond, and of Formula 2-11 in claim 13. As R21 and R23 are not a C3 – C60 carbocyclic group or a C1 – C60 heterocyclic group or a π-electron-rich C3 – C60 cyclic group, Fadhel teaches claim 15 as well.)
Wherein the first compound and the second compound are different from each other (The compounds above are different, as claimed.)
Wherein the first compound is included in an amount of about 20 parts by weight to about 50 parts by weight based on a total 100 parts by weight of the first compound and the second compound (Fadhel teaches that the electron transport layer contains at least one electron transport matrix compound, but Fadhel does not specifically teach what proportion each of multiple electron transport matrix compounds may be present at. However, it is the Examiner’s position that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have mixed the compounds and adjusted the proportions of each compound, to an amount within the range claimed, motivated by the desire to discover optimum or workable ranges (See MPEP 2144.05).
Fadhel teaches that the electron transport matrix contains at least one electron transport matrix compound comprising at least one phosphine oxide group (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an electron transport layer with a combination of two different phosphine oxide compounds mixed with each other, wherein one of the phosphine oxide is of Formula 1 and the other of the phosphine oxides is of Formula 2 based on the desire to predictably practice the invention of Fadhel and based on the totality of the teachings of Fadhel as Fadhel teaches that the components can be used alternatively and in combination.
Fadhel does not teach:
Wherein the electron transport region further comprises an electron injection layer
The electron injection layer comprises a rare earth metal and an alkali metal-containing compound
Wherein the parts by weight of the akali metal-containing compound are greater than the parts by weight of the rare earth metal, each based on a total 100 parts by weight of the electron injection layer
Wherein the rare metal comprises Yb and the alkali metal-containing compound is an alkali metal halide
Jankus teaches and OLED device with an organic phosphine matrix compound as an electron transport layer (Abstract). This is the same composition as the electron transport layer of Fadhel. Jankus teaches that an electron injection layer is arranged in direct contact to the electron transport layer and that the electron injection layer comprises a rare earth metal and an alkali metal halide (Abstract). A preferred rare earth metal taught by Jankus is Yb ([0078]). Jankus teaches that the rare earth metal may be present in an amount of 10 to 98 vol-% and that the alkaline earth metal may be present in an amount of 2 to 90 vol-% ([0026]). Using the density of Yb as 6.9 g/cm3 and the density of KI (a preferred alkali metal halide disclosed in [0078]) as 3.12 g/cm3, the mass percentage of the corresponding components can be calculated to be between 20 – 99 wt% Yb and 1 – 80% KI, which overlaps with the claimed range. Jankus teaches that this electron injection layer increased electron mobility and stability ([0011]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an electron injection layer in direct contact with the electron transport layer of Fadhel wherein the electron injection layer comprises Yb and an alkali metal halide in the claimed amount motivated by the desire to predictably increase the electron mobility and stability of the device as taught by Jankus ([0011]).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fadhel (US20160322568A1) in view of Jankus (US20190013492A1) as applied to claims 1 – 6, 9 – 17 above, and further in view of Kim 2 (US20180123071A1).
As per claims 19 and 20, the prior art combination does not teach:
An electronic apparatus comprising the light emitting device and a thin-film transistor
Wherein the thin-film transistor comprises a source electrode and a drain electrode, and the first electrode of the light-emitting device is electrically connected to the source electrode or the drain electrode
Further comprising a color filter, a color conversion layer, a touch screen layer, a polarizing layer, or any combination thereof
Kim 2 teaches and OLED device (Abstract), which is the same type of device as the prior art combination. Kim 2 teaches that the light emitting diode display may be connected to a thin film transistor ([0024]). Kim 2 also teaches that a color conversion layer may be disposed on the capping layer or the second electrode so that the light generated from the emission layer may realize the desire color while passing through the color conversion layer ([0143]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the OLED of the prior art combination in a thin film transistor apparatus with a color conversion layer because Kim 2 demonstrates that this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789