DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to amendment to application no. 18/164,928 filed on December 18, 2025.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claims 15-17 stand withdrawn.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 18, 2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on October 1, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung et al (KR 10-2021-0102841).
In re claim 1, Jung et al discloses a light-emitting device, comprising: a substrate (i.e. see at least paragraph 0330 disclosing the use of a glass substrate): a first electrode (i.e. see at least paragraph 0351 disclosing a cathode) disposed on the substrate; a second electrode (i.e. see at least paragraph 0351 disclosing an anode) facing the first electrode; and an interlayer (i.e. see at least paragraph 0351 disclosing a light-emitting layer) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the interlayer comprises an emission layer (i.e. the light-emitting layer); and an antioxidant (i.e. see at least paragraph 0352 disclosing the light-emitting layer includes a cured film formed from the photoconversion curable composition; see also at least paragraph 0037 disclosing the photoconversion curable composition comprises an antioxidant), and wherein the first electrode is a cathode, and the second electrode is an anode (i.e. see at least paragraph 0351). Furthermore, it is inherent from Jung et al that the quantum dot light-emitting diode would be formed on a substrate as it is well known in the art that a substrate is needed for support, etc. of a semiconductor device.
In re claim 2, Jung et al discloses further comprising: an electron transport region (i.e. see at least paragraph 0351 disclosing an electron injecting/transport layer) disposed between the first electrode and the emission layer; and a hole transport region (i.e. see at least paragraph 0351 disclosing a hole transport layer) disposed between the second electrode and the emission layer.
In re claim 18, the recitation “an electronic apparatus” in the claim preamble specifies an intended use or field of use and is treated as nonlimiting since it has been held that in device claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claim invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claim invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
In re claim 20, Jung et al discloses further comprising a least a color filter (i.e. see at least paragraphs 0355-357).
Claim(s) 1-10, 14, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al (US Pub 2022/0149306).
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
In re claim 1, Park et al discloses a light-emitting device, comprising: a substrate (i.e. BS): a first electrode (i.e. EL2) disposed on the substrate; a second electrode (i.e. EL1) facing the first electrode; and an interlayer (i.e. EML) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the interlayer comprises an emission layer; and an antioxidant, and wherein the first electrode is a cathode, and the second electrode is an anode (i.e. see at least Figures 4-14, 16, 17; paragraphs 0065, 0098, 0104).
In re claim 2, Park et al discloses further comprising: an electron transport region (i.e. ETR) disposed between the first electrode and the emission layer; and a hole transport region (i.e. HTR) disposed between the second electrode and the emission layer (i.e. see at least Figures 4-7).
In re claim 3, Park et al discloses wherein the electron transport region comprises an inorganic electron transport layer, and the inorganic electron transport layer comprises a metal oxide (i.e. see at least Figures 5-7; paragraph 0096).
In re claim 4, Park et al discloses wherein the metal oxide is at least zinc oxide and other examples of metal oxides as claimed (i.e. see at least paragraphs 0096, 0097).
In re claim 5, Park et al discloses wherein at least the light-emitting device further comprises an antioxidant layer that is different from the emission layer, wherein the antioxidant layer comprises an antioxidant (i.e. see at least paragraphs 0069, 0092).
In re claim 6, Park et al discloses wherein the light-emitting device further comprises the antioxidant layer, the antioxidant layer is at least disposed between the emission layer and the electron transport region (i.e. see at least paragraphs 0069, 0092).
In re claim 7, Park et al discloses wherein the antioxidant comprises at least phenol-containing compound (i.e. see at least paragraph 0109).
In re claims 8 and 9, Park et al discloses wherein the antioxidant comprises a phenol-containing compound listed as claimed (i.e. see at least paragraph 0110).
In re claim 10, Park et al discloses wherein the amine-containing compound is one of the listed as claimed (i.e. see at least paragraphs 0111-0115).
In re claim 14, Park et al discloses wherein the emission layer comprises one or more quantum dots (i.e. see at least paragraph 0075).
In re claim 18, the recitation “an electronic apparatus” in the claim preamble specifies an intended use or field of use and is treated as nonlimiting since it has been held that in device claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claim invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claim invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
In re claim 19, Park et al discloses wherein the electronic apparatus further comprises a first substrate, wherein the first substrate comprises a plurality of sub-pixel regions, and wherein a pixel defining layer (i.e. PDL) is disposed between the plurality of sub-pixel regions (i.e. see at least Figures 16 and 17).
In re claim 20, Park et al discloses further comprising a least a color filter (i.e. see at least paragraph 0022).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Park is not prior art to the present application under 35 USC 102(a)(1), Examiner asserts that applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1432. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM, Monday-Friday.
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at 571-272-2063. 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.
/ANTHONY HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817