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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/9/2026 has been entered.
Specification/Drawings
The amendment filed 4/9/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
New figure 10 filed 4/9/2026 delineates boundaries for a first, second, and third portion of the electron transport layer with a specificity incommensurate with the original disclosure. Nowhere is there an original description present for at least the extent of these portions from a left to a right edge in an electroluminescent device, the particular stacking, or the particular contact between the portions’ boundaries, as now demonstrated in Fig. 10.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
In view of Applicant’s amendments, the prior claim objection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1, 3-7, 9, 12-13, 16-17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. (US 2022/0069246), Liu et al. (US 2016/0027848), Ueda et al. (US 2023/0363192), and Chung et al. (US 2020/0083470), all of record, and Hatakeyama et al. (JP 2021118354 A, with reference to line numbers in the provided translation) newly cited.
(Re Claim 1) Seo teaches the electroluminescent device comprising: a first electrode (101; Fig. 1A, ¶81) and a second electrode (102; Fig. 1A, ¶81) spaced apart from each other;
a light emitting layer (113; Fig. 1A, ¶82) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode; and an electron transport layer (114; Fig. 1A, ¶82) disposed between the light emitting layer and the second electrode,
wherein the electron transport layer further comprises an alkali metal (Cs from CsCl; ¶181) and a halogen (Cl from CsCl; ¶181),
wherein the alkali metal comprises cesium (CsCl; Seo: ¶181), and the halogen comprises chlorine (CsCl; Seo: ¶181).
Seo has not been shown to explicitly teach the electroluminescent device wherein the light emitting layer comprises a plurality of semiconductor nanoparticles, wherein the electron transport layer comprises a plurality of zinc oxide nanoparticles, and wherein the alkali metal comprises rubidium and cesium.
Seo does suggest using quantum dots (¶197) in one of the functional layers.
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to form the light emitting layer 113 of Seo using the quantum dots as taught by Seo (¶197) as quantum dots have better thermal stability and color purity compared to organic materials used for light emission (Liu: ¶10).
Chung teaches forming an electron transport layer (14; Fig. 1) where nanoparticles within include a metal oxide including zinc (¶204).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to form the electron transport layer 14 of modified Seo using zinc oxide nanoparticles due to using Zn1-xMgxO as taught by Chung (¶205), as this material composition is suitable for use with a quantum dot light emitting layer and allows for regulation of the ionization potential and electron affinity through adjusting the value of x (Ueda: ¶64).
This results in the electron transport layer 114 of modified Seo comprised of an alkali metal, a halogen, and zinc oxide nanoparticles.
Seo teaches that a substance for a first portion of the electron transport layer (114-1; Fig. 1A, ¶100) or a second portion of the electron transport layer (114-2; Fig. 1A, ¶100) may be an alkali metal such as Rb, a metal salt such as CsCl, or a metal complex.
Hatakeyama teaches combining rubidium and cesium within an electron transport layer (ln. 2626-2648).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to form 114-1 from CsCl and 114-2 from Rb, as these are materials disclosed and listed by Seo as suitable materials for these layers (substances suitable for the sixth and eighth substance; ¶¶179-181), and Cs and Rb present together improves emission brightness of an organic light emitting device (Hatakeyama: “a combination containing Cs, for example…Cs and Rb…is preferred”; ln. 2644-2645).
This results in the alkali metal comprising Cs and Rb, and the halogen comprising Cl.
(Re Claim 3) Modified Seo teaches the electroluminescent device of claim 1, wherein the electron transport layer is adjacent to the light emitting layer (Fig. 1A), optionally wherein the electron transport layer is adjacent to the second electrode.
(Re Claim 4) Modified Seo teaches the electroluminescent device of claim 1, wherein the zinc oxide nanoparticles comprise Z1-xMxO, wherein M is Mg, Ca, Zr, Co, W, Li, Ti, Y, Al, or a combination thereof, and 0≤x≤0.5 (Chung: ¶205).
(Re Claim 5) Modified Seo teaches the electroluminescent device of claim 1, wherein an average size of the zinc oxide nanoparticles is greater than or equal to about 1 nanometer and less than or equal to about 10 nanometers (Chung: ¶¶22-23).
(Re Claim 6) Modified Seo teaches the electroluminescent device of claim 1, but has not been shown to explicitly teach the electroluminescent device exhibits a maximum external quantum efficiency of greater than or equal to about 12.5%.
However, Modified Seo has been shown to teach each and every element of the structure as claimed. Therefore, the structure of modified Seo as applied is expected to possess all of the same functions and properties, whether expressly stated or not. See MPEP 2145(II).
(Re Claim 7) Modified Seo teaches the electroluminescent device of claim 1, but has not been shown to explicitly teach the electroluminescent device wherein an amount of the halogen per one mole of the alkali metal is greater than or equal to about 0.1 moles and less than or equal to 0.9 moles.
From Seo, the preferable weight percentage of the metal salt or alkali metal to the electron transport material is between 55% and 80% (Seo: ¶100), and an example amount of electron transport material to an added metal complex (¶¶272-273) is listed as 1:2 and 2:1.
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to form 114-1 and 114-2 of Seo with a weight percentage given by Seo as these are preferred values that result in a functioning device (Seo: ¶100). Additionally, a PHOSITA would find it obvious to utilize an amount of electron transport material given in an example electron transport layer composition (Seo: ¶¶272-273) as that is an amount already known and shown to produce a working device within the art.
Where a weight percentage of the metal salt in 114-1 is W%,1, that of the alkali metal in 114-2 is W%,2, the molar masses are Ax, the mole amount is written molx, the mass of the electron transport material in 114-1 is M1 and that of 114-2 is M2 (using the relationship established in ¶272), the resulting mass relationship between 114-1 and 114-2 is given by:
m
o
l
C
s
A
C
s
+
A
C
l
1
-
W
%
,
1
m
o
l
R
b
A
R
b
1
-
W
%
,
2
=
W
%
,
1
M
1
W
%
,
2
M
2
m
o
l
C
s
132.905
+
35.45
0.2
m
o
l
R
b
85.468
0.45
=
0.8
*
1
0.55
*
4
M1/M2=1/4, as (M1/MLiq)/(M2/ MLiq)=(1/2)/(2/1)=1/4 (Seo: ¶¶272-273).
Also,
a
m
o
u
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
h
a
l
o
g
e
n
t
o
a
l
k
a
l
i
m
e
t
a
l
=
m
o
l
C
l
m
o
l
C
s
+
m
o
l
R
b
=
m
o
l
C
s
m
o
l
C
s
+
m
o
l
R
b
=
m
o
l
C
s
m
o
l
R
b
1
+
m
o
l
C
s
m
o
l
R
b
From the given values of Seo, and known molar masses, the amount of the halogen per one mole of the alkali metal is 0.2934, which is within the claimed range.
(Re Claim 9) Modified Seo teaches electroluminescent device of claim 1, but has not been shown to explicitly teach the device wherein a thickness of the electron transport layer is greater than or equal to about 5 nanometers and less than or equal to about 70 nanometers.
Seo teaches forming two parts of an electron transport layer with a thickness of 12.5 nm each (¶272), resulting in a total thickness of 25 nm.
Chung teaches forming a single thickness of an electron transport layer between 5 nm and 25 nm (Chung: ¶208).
The claimed thickness range for an electron transport layer in an electroluminescent device overlaps with that disclosed in the prior art, and so a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to utilize the disclosed thickness values of Seo or Chung, as these produce device layers with a suitable thickness for light emission applications. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
(Re Claim 12) Modified Seo teaches the electroluminescent device of claim 1, wherein the electron transport layer comprises a first surface (bottom surface; Fig. 1A) facing the light emitting layer and a second surface (top surface; Fig. 1A) opposite to the first surface, the electron transport layer comprises a first layer (114-1; Fig. 1A) comprising the first surface and a second layer (114-1; Fig. 1A) comprising the second surface, and the first layer comprises the alkali metal and the halogen (¶92).
(Re Claim 13) Modified Seo teaches the electroluminescent device of claim 12, but has not been shown to explicitly teach wherein a thickness of the first layer is greater than or equal to about 1 nanometer and less than or equal to about 10 nanometers, and a thickness of the second layer is greater than or equal to about 4 nanometers and less than or equal to about 40 nanometers.
Seo teaches forming two parts of an electron transport layer with the same thickness (¶272).
Chung teaches forming a single thickness of an electron transport layer between 5 nm and 25 nm (Chung: ¶208).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to form both the first and second layer of modified Seo using the thickness values provided by Chung for an individual electron transport layer as the first 114-1 and second 114-2, as the sum of the thicknesses of the metal oxide containing first 114-1 and second 114-2 layers will be within the largest bound for a suitable thickness of the electron transport layer containing metal oxide taught by Chung (Chung: ¶208).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
(Re Claim 16) Modified Seo teaches the electroluminescent device of claim 1, but has not been shown to explicitly teach the device wherein in a graph of external quantum efficiency versus luminance of the electroluminescent device, an external quantum efficiency at a luminance of half the maximum luminance is less than or equal to about 0.7 times of a maximum external quantum efficiency, and wherein a brightness of the electroluminescent device decreases to 50% of an initial brightness of the electroluminescent device after greater than or equal to about 500 hours when operated at a luminance of about 650 candelas per square meter.
However, Modified Seo has been shown to teach each and every element of the structure as claimed. Therefore, the structure of modified Seo as applied is expected to possess all of the same functions and properties, whether expressly stated or not. See MPEP 2145(II).
(Re Claim 17) Modified Seo teaches the electroluminescent device of claim 1, wherein a brightness of the electroluminescent device decreases to 90% of an initial brightness of the electroluminescent device after greater than or equal to about 47 hours when operated at a luminance of about 650 candelas per square meter.
However, Modified Seo has been shown to teach each and every element of the structure as claimed. Therefore, the structure of modified Seo as applied is expected to possess all of the same functions and properties, whether expressly stated or not. See MPEP 2145(II).
(Re Claim 19) Modified Seo teaches the electroluminescent device of claim 1, wherein the electroluminescent device is configured to emit green light (Seo: green; Fig. 4B, ¶¶199, 202) or blue light, but has not been shown to explicitly teach the device wherein the electroluminescent device exhibits a maximum external quantum efficiency of greater than or equal to about 14%, or wherein the electroluminescent device exhibits a maximum luminance of greater than or equal to about 500,000 candelas per square meter and less than or equal to about 1,000,000 candelas per square meter.
However, Modified Seo has been shown to teach each and every element of the structure as claimed. Therefore, the structure of modified Seo as applied is expected to possess all of the same functions and properties, whether expressly stated or not. See MPEP 2145(II).
(Re Claim 20) Modified Seo teaches a display device (Fig. 6A-6G, ¶¶229-230) comprising the electroluminescent device of claim 1.
(Re Claim 21) Modified Seo teaches the display device of claim 20, wherein the display device comprises a handheld terminal, a monitor, a notebook computer, a television (Fig. 6F, ¶236), an electronic display board, a camera, or a part for an automatic vehicle.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. (US 2022/0069246), Liu et al. (US 2016/0027848), Ueda et al. (US 2023/0363192), and Chung et al. (US 2020/0083470), all of record, and Hatakeyama et al. (JP 2021118354 A, with reference to line numbers in the provided translation) newly cited, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Won et al. (US 2020/0224094), of record.
(Re Claim 2) Modified Seo teaches the electroluminescent device of claim 1, but has not been shown to explicitly teach the device wherein the plurality of semiconductor nanoparticles does not comprise cadmium, lead, mercury, or a combination thereof.
Chung teaches forming a light emitting layer (13; Fig. 1) using quantum dots (¶125).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to use the quantum dots of Chung for the quantum dots of the light emitting layer of modified Seo as the quantum dots of Chung do not comprise cadmium, lead, mercury, or a combination thereof (Chung: ¶139), reducing harm to health (Won: ¶58).
Claims 8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to claim Seo et al. (US 2022/0069246), Liu et al. (US 2016/0027848), Ueda et al. (US 2023/0363192), and Chung et al. (US 2020/0083470), all of record, and Hatakeyama et al. (JP 2021118354 A, with reference to line numbers in the provided translation) newly cited as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morishima (US 2011/0042662) newly cited.
(Re Claim 8) Modified Seo teaches the electroluminescent device of claim 1, but has not been shown to explicitly teach an amount of the halogen per one mole of the alkali metal is greater than or equal to about 0.3 moles and less than or equal to about 3 moles.
Morishima teaches adding rubidium as a salt to a layer (¶52).
Seo teaches forming the eighth substance using RbF (¶¶179, 181).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to introduce the rubidium of modified Seo into the electron transport layer as the salt RbF of Seo, rather than Rb alone, as this helps stabilize the Rb present within the electron transport layer, preventing diffusion into light emitting layers (Morishima: ¶52).
From Seo, the preferable weight percentage of the metal salt or alkali metal to the electron transport material is between 55% and 80% (Seo: ¶100), and an example amount of electron transport material to an added metal complex (¶¶272-273) is listed as 1:2 and 2:1.
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to form 114-1 and 114-2 of Seo with a weight percentage given by Seo as these are preferred values that result in a functioning device (Seo: ¶100). Additionally, a PHOSITA would find it obvious to utilize an amount of electron transport material given in an example electron transport layer composition (Seo: ¶¶272-273) as that is an amount already known and shown to produce a working device within the art.
Where a weight percentage of the metal salt in 114-1 is W%,1, that of the alkali metal in 114-2 is W%,2, the molar masses are Ax, the mole amount is written molx, the mass of the electron transport material in 114-1 is M1 and that of 114-2 is M2 (using the relationship established in ¶272), the resulting mass relationship between 114-1 and 114-2 is given by:
m
o
l
C
s
A
C
s
+
A
C
l
1
-
W
%
,
1
m
o
l
R
b
A
R
b
+
A
F
1
-
W
%
,
2
=
W
%
,
1
M
1
W
%
,
2
M
2
m
o
l
C
s
132.905
+
35.45
0.2
m
o
l
R
b
(
85.468
+
18.998
)
0.45
=
0.8
*
1
0.55
*
4
M1/M2=1/4, as (M1/MLiq)/(M2/ MLiq)=(1/2)/(2/1)=1/4 (Seo: ¶¶272-273).
Also,
a
m
o
u
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
h
a
l
o
g
e
n
t
o
a
l
k
a
l
i
m
e
t
a
l
=
m
o
l
C
l
m
o
l
C
s
+
m
o
l
R
b
=
m
o
l
C
s
m
o
l
C
s
+
m
o
l
R
b
=
m
o
l
C
s
m
o
l
R
b
1
+
m
o
l
C
s
m
o
l
R
b
From the given values of Seo, and known molar masses, the amount of the halogen per one mole of the alkali metal is 0.3367 moles, which is within the claimed range.
(Re Claim 10) Modified Seo teaches the electroluminescent device of claim 1, wherein the electron transport layer comprises a first surface (bottom surface; Fig. 1A) facing the light emitting layer and a second surface (top surface; Fig. 1A) opposite to the first surface, the electron transport layer comprises a first portion (114-1; Fig. 1A) in a thickness direction of the electron transport layer, the first portion comprising the first surface, a second portion (114-2; Fig. 1A) in the thickness direction of the electron transport layer, the second portion comprising the second surface, and optionally a third portion between the first portion and the second portion in the thickness direction of the electron transport layer (114-1 contains CsCl, while 114-2 contains RbF; “In still another preferred structure, the first electron-transport layer 114-1 in contact with the light-emitting layer contains the fifth substance (the electron-transport material) and the sixth substance, the second electron-transport layer 114-2 contains the seventh substance (the electron-transport material) and an eighth substance (a metal, a metal salt, a metal oxide, or a metal complex like the sixth substance), and the proportion of the sixth substance in the first electron-transport layer 114-1 is higher than the proportion of the eighth substance in the second electron-transport layer 114-2.”; ¶92; the fifth and seventh substance refer to the electron transport material; the sixth substance refers to the alkali salt, e.g., CsCl, in ¶181; the eighth substance refers to Rb; see also ¶91)
Modifies Seo has not been shown to explicitly teach a total amount of the alkali metal and the halogen in the first portion of electron transport layer is greater than a total amount of the alkali metal and the halogen in the second portion of electron transport layer.
Morishima teaches adding rubidium as a salt to a layer (¶52).
Seo teaches forming the eighth substance using RbF (¶¶179, 181).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to introduce the rubidium of modified Seo into the electron transport layer as the salt RbF of Seo, rather than Rb alone, as this helps stabilize the Rb present within the electron transport layer, preventing diffusion into light emitting layers (Morishima: ¶52).
From Seo, the preferable weight percentage of the metal salt or alkali metal to the electron transport material is between 55% and 80% (Seo: ¶100), and an example amount of electron transport material to an added metal complex (¶¶272-273) is listed as 1:2 and 2:1.
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to form 114-1 and 114-2 of Seo with a weight percentage given by Seo as these are preferred values that result in a functioning device (Seo: ¶100). Additionally, a PHOSITA would find it obvious to utilize an amount of electron transport material given in an example electron transport layer composition (Seo: ¶¶272-273) as that is an amount already known and shown to produce a working device within the art.
Where a weight percentage of the metal salt in 114-1 is W%,1, that of the alkali metal in 114-2 is W%,2, the molar masses are Ax, the mole amount is written molx, the mass of the electron transport material in 114-1 is M1 and that of 114-2 is M2 (using the relationship established in ¶272), the resulting mass relationship between 114-1 and 114-2 is given by:
m
o
l
C
s
A
C
s
+
A
C
l
1
-
W
%
,
1
m
o
l
R
b
A
R
b
+
A
F
1
-
W
%
,
2
=
W
%
,
1
M
1
W
%
,
2
M
2
m
o
l
C
s
132.905
+
35.45
0.2
m
o
l
R
b
(
85.468
+
18.998
)
0.45
=
0.8
*
1
0.55
*
4
M1/M2=1/4, as (M1/MLiq)/(M2/ MLiq)=(1/2)/(2/1)=1/4 (Seo: ¶¶272-273).
The total amount of alkali metal and the halogen in the first portion of the electron transport layer is
m
o
l
C
s
+
m
o
l
C
l
=
2
m
o
l
C
s
, while the total amount of the alkali metal and the halogen in the second portion of the electron transport layer is
m
o
l
R
b
.
With the values above,
2
m
o
l
C
s
m
o
l
R
b
>
1
⇒
2
0.5077
>
1
is true, and so the claimed relationship between the first and second portion is true.
(Re Claim 11) Modified Seo teaches the electroluminescent device of claim 10, wherein the second portion does not comprise the halogen (no chlorine is present in the second portion; ¶92), or wherein the first portion comprises an alkali metal that is not present in the second portion (cesium is present in the first portion but not in the second portion; ¶92).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Seo et al. (US 2022/0069246), Liu et al. (US 2016/0027848), Ueda et al. (US 2023/0363192), and Chung et al. (US 2020/0083470), all of record, and Hatakeyama et al. (JP 2021118354 A, with reference to line numbers in the provided translation) newly cited, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0296608), of record.
(Re Claim 14) Modified Seo teaches the electroluminescent device of claim 1, but has not been shown to explicitly teach the device wherein in the electron transport layer, a mole ratio of the halogen to the zinc in the electron transport layer is greater than or equal to about 0.01:1 and less than or equal to about 0.9:1; a mole ratio of the alkali metal to the zinc in the electron transport layer is greater than or equal to about 0.01:1 and less than or equal to about 0.9:1; or a mole ratio of the halogen to the zinc in the electron transport layer is greater than or equal to about 0.01:1 and less than or equal to about 0.9:1 and a mole ratio of the alkali metal to the zinc in the electron transport layer is greater than or equal to about 0.01:1 and less than or equal to about 0.9:1.
Lee teaches a mole ratio of an alkaline-earth metal to a total alkali metal may be equal to about 1.01:1 (¶¶19, 50), and a mole ratio of an alkaline-earth metal to zinc may be about 0.01:1 to about 0.5:1 (¶34). Using the mole ratio of alkaline-earth metal to a total alkali metal (which may be an alkali metal compound including a salt; ¶134), Lee teaches a mole ratio of the total alkali metal to zinc may be about 0.00990:1 to about 0.49500:1 (from (0.01 alkaline-earth metal)(1 alkali metal/1.01 alkaline-earth metal) and (0.5 alkaline-earth metal)(1 alkali metal/1.01 alkaline-earth metal) respectively, due to the disclosed mole ratio between the alkaline-earth metal to a total alkali metal (¶19)
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to utilize the mole ratio of alkali metal to zinc as determined from Lee when forming the electron transport layer 114 of modified Seo as this allows increased generation of free electrons (Lee: ¶144), and Lee teaches the total alkali metal includes a combination of Cs and Rb (Lee: ¶¶12, 19).
As the alkali metal in modified Seo comes from the alkali metal salt e.g., CsCl, at a ratio of 1:1 for alkali metal:halogen, and Lee teaches that the alkali metal may be contributed through salts (¶134), a PHOSITA would find it obvious that when adopting the mole ratio of alkali metal to zinc of modified Seo when using a salt such as CsCl the same mole ratio of the halogen to zinc is achieved, and so modified Seo in view of Lee teaches the halogen to zinc ratio. Also, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
(Re Claim 15) Modified Seo teaches the electroluminescent device of claim 1, but has not been shown to explicitly teach the device wherein in the electron transport layer, a mole ratio of the halogen to the zinc is greater than or equal to about 0.015:1 and less than or equal to about 0.5:1; a mole ratio of the alkali metal to the zinc is greater than or equal to about 0.015:1 and less than or equal to about 0.5:1; or a mole ratio of the halogen to the zinc is greater than or equal to about 0.015:1 and less than or equal to about 0.5:1 and a mole ratio of the alkali metal to the zinc is greater than or equal to about 0.015:1 and less than or equal to about 0.5:1.
Lee teaches a mole ratio of an alkaline-earth metal to a total alkali metal may be equal to about 1.01:1 (¶¶19, 50), and a mole ratio of an alkaline-earth metal to zinc may be about 0.01:1 to about 0.5:1 (¶34). Using the mole ratio of alkaline-earth metal to a total alkali metal (which may be an alkali metal compound including a salt; ¶134), Lee teaches a mole ratio of the total alkali metal to zinc may be about 0.00990:1 to about 0.49500:1 (from (0.01 alkaline-earth metal)(1 alkali metal/1.01 alkaline-earth metal) and (0.5 alkaline-earth metal)(1 alkali metal/1.01 alkaline-earth metal) respectively, due to the disclosed mole ratio between the alkaline-earth metal to a total alkali metal (¶19).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to utilize the mole ratio of alkali metal to zinc as determined from Lee when forming the electron transport layer 114 of modified Seo as this allows increased generation of free electrons (Lee: ¶144), and Lee teaches the total alkali metal includes a combination of Cs and Rb (Lee: ¶¶12, 19).
As the alkali metal in modified Seo comes from the alkali metal salt e.g., CsCl, at a ratio of 1:1 for alkali metal:halogen, and Lee teaches that the alkali metal may be contributed through salts (¶134), a PHOSITA would find it obvious that when adopting the mole ratio of alkali metal to zinc of modified Seo when using a salt such as CsCl the same mole ratio of halogen to zinc is achieved, and so modified Seo in view of Lee teaches the halogen to zinc ratio. Also, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Seo et al. (US 2022/0069246), Liu et al. (US 2016/0027848), Ueda et al. (US 2023/0363192), and Chung et al. (US 2020/0083470), all of record, and Hatakeyama et al. (JP 2021118354 A, with reference to line numbers in the provided translation) newly cited, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 2023/0078114), of record.
(Re Claim 18) Modifed Seo teaches the electroluminescent device of claim 1, but has not been shown to explicitly teach the device wherein the electron transport layer is adjacent to the second electrode, and an interface roughness between the electron transport layer and the second electrode is greater than or equal to about 5 nanometers and less than or equal to about 100 nanometers.
Li teaches roughening (¶80) the interface between an electron transport layer (130; Fig. 1A) and a second electrode (120; Fig. 1A).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to roughen the surface between the electron transport layer and the second electrode in the manner taught by Li (Li: ¶109) to increase the contact area between the electron transport layer 114 and second electrode 102 of modified Seo, avoiding less election injection (Li: ¶81).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
For the drawings, though the specification is consistent with what is now shown in new Fig. 10 (remarks, p. 10), consistent is not the same as commensurate. New figure 10 filed 12/30/2025 delineates boundaries for a presumed first, second, and third portion of the electron transport layer with a specificity incommensurate with the original disclosure. Nowhere is there an original description present for at least the extent of these portions from a left to a right edge in an electroluminescent device, the particular stacking, or the particular contact between the portions’ boundaries, as now demonstrated in Fig. 10. Therefore Fig. 10 now includes new matter.
Applicant appears to argue that they have achieved unexpected results using their claimed materials (remarks, p. 12) and view this as sufficient to rebut the rejection of claim 1. However, Applicant only presents a table with a small collection of tests associated with their own invention, with no apparent reference to what is established in the art, nor any testing of devices within the art that are known to be closest to the Applicant’s claimed invention. The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (Mere conclusions in appellants’ brief that the claimed polymer had an unexpectedly increased impact strength "are not entitled to the weight of conclusions accompanying the evidence, either in the specification or in a declaration."); Ex parte C, 27 USPQ2d 1492 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (Applicant alleged unexpected results with regard to the claimed soybean plant, however there was no basis for judging the practical significance of data with regard to maturity date, flowering date, flower color, or height of the plant.). See also In re Nolan, 553 F.2d 1261, 1267, 193 USPQ 641, 645 (CCPA 1977) and In re Eli Lilly, 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990) as discussed in MPEP § 716.02(c).
Furthermore, as shown in the rejections above, other reasons than those anticipated by the Applicant to arrive at the claimed structure, and so also its associated properties and functions, are present. "The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (The prior art taught combustion fluid analyzers which used labyrinth heaters to maintain the samples at a uniform temperature. Although appellant showed that an unexpectedly shorter response time was obtained when a labyrinth heater was employed, the Board held this advantage would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art.). See also Lantech Inc. v. Kaufman Co. of Ohio Inc., 878 F.2d 1446, 12 USPQ2d 1076, 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1058 (1990) (unpublished — not citable as precedent) ("The recitation of an additional advantage associated with doing what the prior art suggests does not lend patentability to an otherwise unpatentable invention.") (bold added).
For arguments related to the presence of ZMO (remarks: p. 11), the zinc oxide as shown in the rejection is a ZMO compound when x is not equal to 0 (Zn1-xMgxO as taught by Chung (¶205)).
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments are moot.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher A Schodde whose telephone number is (571)270-1974. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1000-1800 EST.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at (571)272-2339. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A. SCHODDE/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JESSICA S MANNO/SPE, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights