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 .
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 bis(2-methyl-8-quinolinolato-N1,O8)-(1,1′-biphenyl-4-olato)aluminum (BAlq)) and one of an organometallic complex of an alkali metal and an organometallic complex of an alkaline earth metal (ETR comprising lithium quinolate (LiQ)) (paragraphs 105-109), 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 (BAlq has a refractive index of about 1.70 at a visible light wavelength. Furthermore, since BAlq as “a first material” is an identical material choice to that of the invention as described in paragraphs 176-177 and 201-202 in the instant application, claimed property of such material (i.e., a refractive index value) would be also identical) (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.
Claim 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 according to claim 4 including a pixel (Fig. 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneda et al. (US 2013/0119416 A1; hereinafter “Yoneda”) in view of Lee.
Regarding claim 1, referring to Fig. 1 and related text, Yoneda teaches a light-emitting device comprising: a first electrode (3) (paragraph 40); a second electrode (9) (paragraphs 40); a first unit (6, 7b, and 8) (paragraphs 38-40); and a first layer (5) (paragraph 40), wherein the second electrode comprises a region overlapping with the first electrode (Fig. 1), wherein the first unit comprises a region positioned between the first electrode and the second electrode (Fig. 1), wherein the first unit comprises a second layer (7b), a third layer (8), and a fourth layer (6) (paragraphs 38-40), wherein the second layer comprises a region positioned between the third layer and the fourth layer (Fig. 1), wherein the second layer comprises a light-emitting material (paragraphs 39 and 97), wherein the third layer comprises a region positioned between the second layer and the second electrode (Fig. 1), wherein the third layer is in contact with the second layer (Fig. 1), wherein the fourth layer comprises a region positioned between the first electrode and the second layer (Fig. 1), wherein the fourth layer comprises a second material (a hole injection/transport material) (paragraphs 94-96), wherein the first layer comprises a region positioned between the first electrode and the first unit (Fig. 1), wherein the first layer comprises the second material and a material having an electron acceptor property (paragraphs 94-95, tungsten oxide or molybdenum oxide used for the hole injection layer 5), 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 (Fig. 3 and paragraphs 53-55. 5 having a refractive index of 1.55 at a wavelength 455 nm), 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 (paragraph 96. For example, an arylamine derivative used for the hole transport layer 6 has a HOMO about −5.5 eV as a material property).
Yoneda does not explicitly teach the third layer of the first unit comprising a first material and one of an organometallic complex of an alkali metal and an organometallic complex of an alkaline earth metal. Lee teaches a light-emitting device (Fig. 2 and paragraph 36) comprising: a first unit (HTL, EML, and ETR) (paragraphs 36-38), wherein the first unit comprises a third layer (ETR) (paragraphs 36-40), wherein the third layer comprises a first material (ETR comprising bis(2-methyl-8-quinolinolato-N1,O8)-(1,1′-biphenyl-4-olato)aluminum (BAlq)) and one of an organometallic complex of an alkali metal and an organometallic complex of an alkaline earth metal (ETR comprising lithium quinolate (LiQ)) as materials having electron injection/transport characteristics (paragraphs 105-109). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Yoneda with that of Lee in order to utilize readily known material choices for the electron injection/transport layer of the light-emitting device for obtaining predictable electron injection/transport characteristics.
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches 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 (BAlq has a refractive index of about 1.70 at a visible light wavelength. Furthermore, since BAlq as “a first material” is an identical material choice to that of the invention as described in paragraphs 176-177 and 201-202 in the instant application, claimed property of such material (i.e., a refractive index value) would be also identical) (paragraph 108).
Regarding claim 5, 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 10, Yoneda teaches a light-emitting apparatus comprising: the light-emitting device according to claim 1; and at least one of a transistor and a substrate (1) (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 2-3 and 38-39).
Regarding claim 11, Yoneda teaches a display device comprising: the light-emitting device according to claim 1; and at least one of a transistor and a substrate (1) (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 2-3 and 38-39).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneda in view of Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee 519.
Regarding claim 6, Yoneda in view of 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 Yoneda in view of Lee with that of Lee 519 in order to enhance light emitting efficiency.
Claims 7 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneda in view of Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee 831.
Regarding claim 7, Yoneda teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 1 including a pixel (blue, green, and red pixels as shown in Fig. 1) (Figs. 1 and 13 and paragraphs 38-39 and 107-108). However, Yoneda in view of 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 Yoneda in view 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 12-13, Yoneda in view of Lee does not explicitly teach a lighting device comprising a housing (claim 12) and an electronic device comprising at least one of a sensor, an operation button, a speaker, and a microphone (claim 13). 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 Yoneda in view of Lee with that of Lee 831 in order to provide the functioning lighting and electronic devices.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejections as set forth above in this Office Action.
Furthermore, in response to the previous rejection of claim 1 by Yoneda, Applicant additionally argues that Yoneda fails to expressly describe or support any specific HOMO level to a specific HOMO level within the claimed range (Remarks, page 2-3). However, this is not found persuasive since arylamine derivative as one of hole transport material choices described in paragraph 96 from Yoneda would have a HOMO about −5.5 eV as a material property of such material. Furthermore, it is noted that the instant application similarly utilizes arylamine derivative/compound as a hole transport material HT1 having such claimed HOMO value (See paragraphs 67-82 and 98-99).
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 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