DETAILED ACTION
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 4, 14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2021/0013430 A1; hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 4, referring to Fig. 2 and related text, Lee teaches a light-emitting device comprising: a first electrode (EL1) (paragraph 36); a second electrode (EL2) (paragraph 36); and a first unit (HTR, EML, and ETR) (paragraph 36), wherein the second electrode comprises a region overlapping with the first electrode (Fig. 2), wherein the first unit comprises a region positioned between the first electrode and the second electrode (Fig. 2), wherein the first unit comprises a first layer (EML), a second layer (HTR), and a third layer (ETR) (paragraph 36), wherein the first layer comprises a region positioned between the second layer and the third layer (Fig. 2), wherein the first layer comprises a light-emitting material (a material for EML) (paragraphs 50-86), wherein the third layer comprises a region positioned between the first layer and the second electrode (Fig. 2), wherein the third layer is in contact with the first layer (Fig. 2), wherein the third layer comprises a first material (ETR comprising 2,4,6-tris(3′-(pyridin-3-yl)biphenyl-3-yl)-1,3,5-triazine for ETL) and one of an organometallic complex of an alkali metal and an organometallic complex of an alkaline earth metal (ETR comprising lithium quinolate (LiQ) for EIL) (paragraphs 105-109), wherein the first material comprises a pyrimidine ring, a pyrazine ring, a pyridazine ring, or a triazine ring (1,3,5 triazine ring for ETR comprising 2,4,6-tris(3′-(pyridin-3-yl)biphenyl-3-yl)-1,3,5-triazine), wherein the first material has a second refractive index, and wherein the second refractive index is higher than or equal to 1.5 and lower than or equal to 1.75 in a wavelength range of 455 nm to 465 nm inclusive ((1) ETR comprising 2,4,6-tris(3′-(pyridin-3-yl)biphenyl-3-yl)-1,3,5-triazine abbreviated as YmPyPB has a known refractive index value 1.70-1.75 at a visible light wavelength as a material property, (2) ETR having 2,4,6-tris(3′-(pyridin-3-yl)biphenyl-3-yl)-1,3,5-triazine, which has 1,3,5-triazine ring has a known refractive index of about 1.50 at a visible light wavelength as a material property, and/or (3) considering 2,4,6-tris(3′-(pyridin-3-yl)biphenyl-3-yl)-1,3,5-triazine or 2,4,6-tris(3′-(pyridin-3-yl)biphenyl-3-yl)-1,3,5-triazine having 1,3,5-triazine ring as “a first material…wherein the first material comprises…a triazine ring”, the refractive index value of the claimed first material would be identical as a material property) (paragraph 108).
Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches wherein the first material has an electron mobility higher than or equal to 1×10−7 cm2/Vs and lower than or equal to 5×10−5 cm2/Vs when a square root of an electric field strength [V/cm] is 600 (paragraph 108. Since Lee teaches the third layer comprising the first material having the second refractive index identical to that of the claim as discussed in claim 4 above, claimed material property of the first material, “the first material has an electron mobility higher than or equal to 1×10−7 cm2/Vs and lower than or equal to 5×10−5 cm2/Vs when a square root of an electric field strength [V/cm] is 600”, is presumed to be inherent: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 17, Lee teaches a light-emitting apparatus comprising: the light-emitting device according to claim 4; and at least one of a transistor and a substrate (a glass substrate) (paragraphs 3 and 135).
Regarding claim 18, Lee teaches a display device comprising: the light-emitting device according to claim 4; and at least one of a transistor and a substrate (a glass substrate) (paragraphs 3 and 135).
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2015/0155519 A1; hereinafter “Lee 519”).
Regarding claim 15, Lee does not explicitly teach a second unit and an intermediate layer. Lee 519 teaches a light-emitting device (Fig. 3 and paragraph 66), comprising: a first unit (unit 1); a second unit (unit 2); and an intermediate layer (a charge generation layer CGL) (Fig. 3 and paragraphs 66-115), wherein the second unit comprises a region positioned between the intermediate layer and a second electrode (175) (Fig. 3 and paragraph 67), wherein the intermediate layer comprises a region positioned between the first unit and the second unit (Fig. 3), and wherein the intermediate layer is configured to supply a hole to one of the first unit and the second unit (150 of CGL supplying holes to unit 2) and supply an electron to the other (145 of CGL supplying electrons to unit 1) (Fig. 3 and paragraphs 81-82). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Lee with that of Lee 519 in order to enhance light emitting efficiency.
Claims 16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0280831 A1; hereinafter “Lee 831”).
Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches the light-emitting device including a pixel (Figs. 1-2 and paragraph 36, an organic electroluminescence device 10 as a pixel). However, Lee does not explicitly teach a functional layer comprising a pixel circuit for a functional panel. Lee 831 teaches a functional panel (a display device DD) comprising: a light-emitting device (a light emitting diodes OEL) and a functional layer (a circuit layer DP-CL), wherein the functional layer comprises a pixel circuit (driving and switching transistors) (Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 53-71). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Lee with that of Lee 831 in order to provide the functioning transistors as a pixel circuit to operate/use the light-emitting diodes.
Regarding claims 19-20, Lee does not explicitly teach a lighting device comprising a housing (claim 19) and an electronic device comprising at least one of a sensor, an operation button, a speaker, and a microphone (claim 20). Lee 831 teaches a lighting device (ED) comprising a light-emitting apparatus (DD) and a housing (HAU) (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 53-57). Lee 831 also teaches an electronic device (ED) comprising a display device (DD) and at least one of a sensor, an operation button, a speaker, and a microphone (ED included in paragraph 54 such as a smart phone and a television would include at least one of a sensor, an operation button, a speaker, and a microphone) (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 53-54). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Lee with that of Lee 831 in order to provide the functioning lighting and electronic devices.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 10-13 are allowable over the cited prior arts.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record, alone or in combination, and to the examiner’s knowledge does not teach, disclose, suggest, or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the instant invention regarding a light-emitting device in claim 1, particularly in combination with the limitation that the second material comprises a fluorene skeleton, wherein the second material has a first refractive index, wherein the first refractive index is higher than or equal to 1.5 and lower than or equal to 1.75 in a wavelength range of 455 nm to 465 nm inclusive, wherein the second material has a first highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) level, and wherein the first highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) level is higher than or equal to -5.7 eV and lower than or equal to -5.3 eV.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/25/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with reasons as follow:
Applicant argues that the Office Action fails to provide that the first material is identical to that of the claim because Lee specifically teaches 2,4,6-tris(3′-(pyridin-3-yl)biphenyl-3-yl)-1,3,5-triazine and the present invention does not disclose such material for the first material, referring to paragraph 124 in the instant application. This is not found persuasive since claim 4 specifically recites “the first material comprises…a triazine ring” (see claim 4) and Lee teaching “2,4,6-tris(3′-(pyridin-3-yl)biphenyl-3-yl)-1,3,5-triazine” having 1,3,5-traizine ring for the ETR would clearly read on the claimed limitation as the first material. As such, considering the limitation “the first material comprises…a triazine ring” as the first material comprising the 1,3,5-triazine ring, Lee clearly teaches the limitation “the first material comprises…a triazine ring” as the identical material choice for the first material and would also include the refractive index of the 1,3,5-triazine ring identical to that of the claim.
Even assuming, arguendo, that Lee fails to teach the identical first material since Applicant points out paragraph 124 from the present application for different material choices for the first material, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., different material choices in paragraph 124) are not recited in the rejected claim 4. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, even assuming, arguendo, again that Lee fails to teach the identical first material, it is known to one skilled in the art “2,4,6-tris(3′-(pyridin-3-yl)biphenyl-3-yl)-1,3,5-triazine” abbreviated as YmPyPB as the first material (having a refractive index about 1.70-1.75 at a visible light wavelength as a material property) or “2,4,6-tris(3′-(pyridin-3-yl)biphenyl-3-yl)-1,3,5-triazine” having 1,3,5-triazine as the first material (having a refractive index about 1.50 at a visible light wavelength as a material property) both would read on the claimed limitation regarding the refractive index value in claim 4. This reasoning is further clarified in the Office Action as discussed above. As such, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANIEL B WHALEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3418. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8AM-5PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571)272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL WHALEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights