DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/20/2026 has been entered.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, the amended limitation “wherein the second electrode is an Ag electrode consisting of Ag” would raise a new matter issue since the specification of the instant applicant does not fully and clearly disclose such limitation. Particularly, while the specification describes “The second electrode 150 may include lithium (Li), silver (Ag), magnesium (Mg), aluminum (Al), aluminum-lithium (Al—Li), calcium (Ca), magnesium-indium (Mg—In), magnesium-silver (Mg—Ag), ytterbium (Yb), silver-ytterbium (Ag—Yb), ITO, IZO, or any combination thereof” (paragraph 248), the specification does not fully and clearly teach that the second electrode 150 is an Ag electrode consisting of Ag [underlying for clarity]. Claims 2-14 and 16-20, which depend from claims 1 and 15, are also rejected by virtue of their dependencies.
Applicant should note that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as discussed above is substantially identical to Applicant’s argument that the cited prior art, Kim, fails to teach the amended limitation “wherein the second electrode is an Ag electrode consisting of Ag” while Kim states that “For example, the thin film electrode insertion layer 180 includes AgMg, MgAg, Yb, Al, Ag, Sm, Ca, Sr, Eu, Tb, Ba, La, Ce, and any combination thereof” (See Remarks dated 04/20/2026, page 1). Accordingly, if Applicant contends that Kim fails to teach the amended limitation, then the specification of the instant application likewise fails to provide support for the amended limitation. Conversely, if Applicant contends that the specification of the instant application provides support the amended limitation, then Kim, which includes substantially the same disclosure, likewise teaches the amended limitation.
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 1-3, 5-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (KR 10-2021-0039532 A; hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a light-emitting device comprising: a first electrode (a first electrode 110) (Fig. 1 and pages 2 and 4-5); a second electrode (a thin film electrode insertion layer 180 of a second electrode 190) facing the first electrode (Fig. 1 and pages 2-4); a middle region (a region including 140 and 150) comprising an emission layer (a light emitting layer 140) between the first electrode and the second electrode (Fig. 1 and pages 2 and 11-12), an electron transport region (an electron transport region 150 including an electron transport layer) between the second electrode and the emission layer, and an electron injection layer (150 including an electron injection layer) between the second electrode and the electron transport region (Fig. 1 and pages 11-12 and 17); and an anti-oxidation layer (a lower electrode 171 of 190) between the second electrode and the electron transport region (Fig. 1 and pages 2-3 and 18), wherein the electron transport region comprises an inorganic electron transport layer that comprises a metal oxide layer comprising a metal oxide (the electron transport layer of 150 formed of an inorganic metal oxide) (pages 2-4), wherein the electron injection layer comprises Sc, Y, Ce, Tb, Yb, Gd, or any combination thereof (the electron injection layer of 150 formed of a rare earth metal such as Sc) (page 17), wherein the electron injection layer and the anti-oxidation layer comprise different materials from each other (for example, the electron injection layer of 150 formed of Sc and 171 formed of ITO) (pages 17-18), and wherein the second electrode is an Ag electrode consisting of Ag (page 4. Since Kim teaches “For example, the thin film electrode insertion layer 180 includes AgMg, MgAg, Yb, Al, Ag, Sm, Ca, Sr, Eu, Tb, Ba, La, Ce, and any combination thereof” and “any combination thereof” from Kim sufficiently encompasses Ag alone for the thin film electrode insertion layer 180 [underlying for clarity], Kim’s teaching would anticipate the claimed limitation).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches wherein the anti-oxidation layer comprises a transparent conductive oxide (171 formed of ITO) (page 18).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches wherein the transparent conductive oxide comprises indium-tin oxide (ITO), aluminum-doped zinc oxide (AZO), indium-zinc oxide (IZO), or a mixture thereof (171 formed of ITO) (page 18).
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches wherein the anti-oxidation layer is in contact with the second electrode (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches wherein the metal oxide of the inorganic electron transport layer is represented by Formula 1: MxOy, Formula 1 wherein, in Formula 1, M is at least one metal or metalloid selected from the group consisting of elements belonging to Groups 1 to 14 of the Periodic Table of Elements, and x and y are each independently an integer from 1 to 5 (page 3, ZnO).
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches wherein M comprises Zn, Ti, W, Sn, In, Nb, Fe, Ce, Sr, Ba, In, Al, Nb, Si, Mg, Ga, or a combination thereof (page 3, ZnO).
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches wherein the metal oxide of the inorganic electron transport layer is represented by Formula 2: M1αM2βOy, Formula 2 wherein, in Formula 2, M1 and M2 are each independently at least one different metal or metalloid selected from the group consisting of elements belonging to Groups 1 to 14 of the Periodic Table of Elements, and 0<α≤2, 0<β≤2, and 1<y≤5 are satisfied (page 3, BaSnO3).
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches wherein M1 comprises Zn, Ti, W, Sn, In, Nb, Fe, Ce, Sr, Ba, In, Al, Nb, or a combination thereof, and M2 comprises Ti, Sn, Si, Mg, Al, Ga, In, or a combination thereof (page 3, BaSnO3).
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches that the electron transport region further comprises at least one layer selected from a buffer layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron control layer, and an electron transport layer (page 12).
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches wherein the metal oxide is a zinc-containing oxide (page 3, ZnO).
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches wherein the inorganic electron transport layer comprises 50 parts by weight or more of the metal oxide based on 100 parts by weight of the entire inorganic electron transport layer (page 3, ZnO).
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches wherein the inorganic electron transport layer is organic-free (page 3, ZnO).
Regarding claim 14, Kim teaches wherein the emission layer comprises quantum dots (141) (page 11).
Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches a method of manufacturing a light-emitting device, the method comprising: providing an emission layer (a light emitting layer 140) on a first electrode (a first electrode 120) (Fig. 1 and pages 4-5, 11, and 18); providing, on the emission layer, an inorganic electron transport layer (an electron transport region 150 including an electron transport layer) comprising a metal oxide (the electron transport layer of 150 formed of an inorganic metal oxide) (Fig. 1 and pages 2-3 and 11-12); providing, on the inorganic electron transport layer comprising the metal oxide, an electron injection layer (150 including an electron injection layer) comprising Sc, Y, Ce, Tb, Yb, Gd, or any combination thereof (the electron injection layer of 150 formed of a rare earth metal such as Sc) (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 11-12 and 17); providing an anti-oxidation layer (a lower electrode 171 of a second electrode 190) on the inorganic electron transport layer (Fig. 1 and pages 2-3 and 18); and forming a second electrode (a thin film electrode insertion layer 180 of 190) on the anti-oxidation layer (Fig. 1 and pages 2-4), wherein the electron injection layer and the anti-oxidation layer comprise different materials from each other (for example, the electron injection layer of 150 formed of Sc and 171 formed of ITO) (pages 17-18), and wherein the second electrode is an Ag electrode consisting of Ag (page 4. Since Kim teaches “For example, the thin film electrode insertion layer 180 includes AgMg, MgAg, Yb, Al, Ag, Sm, Ca, Sr, Eu, Tb, Ba, La, Ce, and any combination thereof” and “any combination thereof” from Kim sufficiently encompasses Ag alone for the thin film electrode insertion layer 180 [underlying for clarity], Kim’s teaching would anticipate the claimed limitation).
Regarding claim 17, Kim teaches that the second electrode is provided by vacuum deposition (pages 2 and 18. For example, 180 formed by a vacuum deposition method).
Regarding claim 18, Kim teaches wherein the inorganic electron transport layer is provided by inkjet printing of a composition comprising the metal oxide or by vacuum deposition of the metal oxide (paragraphs 2 and 18. For example, the electron transport layer is formed by a vacuum deposition method).
Regarding claim 19, Kim teaches an electronic apparatus comprising the light-emitting device according to claim 1 (pages 1-2).
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 4, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Kim.
Regarding claim 4, while Kim does not explicitly teach that the anti-oxidation layer (171) has a thickness of 50 Å to 100 Å, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust and obtain the optimal thickness for the anti-oxidation layer, including the claimed thickness of 50 Å to 100 Å, as a routine experimentation. It has held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 16, Kim teaches that the anti-oxidation layer formed of a transparent conductive oxide (171 formed of ITO) (page 18). While Kim does not explicitly teach that the anti-oxidation layer is formed by a physical vapor deposition (PVD) process, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to deposit a desired layer by the readily available PVD process in the semiconductor fabrication for obtaining the predictable coating/deposition characteristics.
Regarding claim 20, Kim does not explicitly teach further comprising a color filter, a color conversion layer, a touch screen layer, a polarizing layer, or any combination thereof. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include at least one of the color filter, the color conversion layer, the touch screen layer, and the polarizing layer in combination with the light-emitting device for desired usage of the light-emitting device such as the color filter formed on the light-emitting device in order to provide desired light emitting output.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection as set forth above in this Office Action.
Conclusion
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