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 Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 2-4 be found allowable, claims and claims 8-9 and 21 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being substantial duplicates thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Despite the fact that the maximum peak of the emission is labeled as λ2 in claim 5 and λ3 in claim 8, the two claims are identical. Claim 2 is essentially identical to claim 5 (and claim 8) for the following reason. Claim 2 recites that the device emits a spectrum and does not recite that the first layer emits photoluminescent light, while claim 5 (and claim 8) does not recite that the device emits a spectrum but recites that the first layer does and that the first layer emits photoluminescent light. Despite the different wording, the light emission in each device comes from the first layer which contains a light-emitting material. Photoluminescence is literally light-emitting. Thus, the phrase “the first layer emits photoluminescent light” in claims 5 and 8 is inherent in claim 2, and the phrase “the light-emitting device is configured to emit light” in claim 2 is inherent in claims 5 and 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim-ending period is mis-placed.
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.
Claims 2-9, 14-15 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0159418 A1 to Ye et al.
For ease of comparison with the prior art device, the claimed device can be viewed as having the configuration of 1st electrode | 4th layer | 5th layer | 1st layer | 3rd layer | 2nd electrode, which, in one embodiment, can be narrowed to anode | HTL2 | HTL1 | EML | 3rd layer | cathode, wherein the refractive index of HTL2 is greater than that of HTL1 and wherein the refractive indices are measured at the wavelength of the maximum peak of the emission spectrum.
Ye et al. discloses an OLED having a partial configuration of anode | HTL2 | HTL1 | EML | ETR | cathode (see the figures) wherein HTL1 is in contact with HTL2 and wherein HTL2 has a higher refractive index than HTL1 [0039], such as 1.9 versus 1.6 (see [0092] and claims 3-5). As the arrangement of the layers is designed to guide the light emitted from the EML, the refractive indices are apparently measured at the wavelength of the emitted light. The HTL2 comprises an amine compound such as
PNG
media_image1.png
396
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(see [0064]) and the HTL1 comprises a fluorene diamine compound such as
PNG
media_image2.png
172
372
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(see [0053]). Claim 2 is therefore anticipated. So are claims 3-9, 14-15 and 21. As the OLED is used in display devices such as TVs, mobile phones and navigation devices [0003], the features of claims 17-20 are also anticipated.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0159418 A1 to Ye et al.
Regarding claim 10, the device of claim 2 is disclosed by Ye et al. as explained. In some embodiment, the prior art device has the HTL1 in contact with both the EML and the HTL2. Further, HTL1 and HTL2 have thicknesses of 10-320 nm and 10-160 nm, respectively [0067]. The distance d as recited in claim 10 is equivalent to the thickness of the 5th layer (which corresponds to HTL1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to adjust the thickness of HTL1 in the permissible range of 10-320 nm, such as 20-120 nm, without expecting any difficulty or criticality.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The features of claim 11 are not suggested by Ye et al. or elsewhere. Claim 12 in essence names the fifth layer as a carrier-blocking layer. In the device disclosed by Ye et al., the HTL1 is either in contact with the EML or separated from the EML by an electron-blocking layer. Thus, HTL1 does not necessarily have an electron-blocking functionality. And when an electron-blocking layer is present, there is not a suggestion for it to have a refractive index smaller than that of the HTL1. Regarding claim 16, the prior art compound corresponding to the second organic compound is the amine compound in the HTL1, which is not a monoamine but a diamine.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU ANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5454. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, ROBERT JONES can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
/VU A NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762