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 .
Claims 1-6 are pending and have been examined.
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.
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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the hyphens (- -) represent, for example, as (30A - Fig 2B - [0128]) = (element 30A - Figure No. 2B - Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. The same conventions apply to Column and Sentence, for example (19:14-20) = (column19:sentences 14-20). These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermes at al. (US 20130214255 A1 – hereinafter Hermes) in view of Kitahara (US 20190319219 A1 – hereinafter Kitahara), Yamazaki (US 20130240852 A1 – hereinafter Yamazaki), and Kitamura (US 20100123126 A1 – hereinafter Kitamura).
Regarding independent claim 1, Hermes teaches:
(Original) A light-emitting device ([0008] – “opto-electric devices, such
as light emitting devices”) comprising:
a substrate (10 -Fig 2 – [0090] – “substrate 10”),
a first electrode (20 – Fig. 2 – [0089] – “first electrode layer 20”) having a light
transmitting property located over the substrate (10),
an organic layer (30 – Fig. 2 – [0089] – “organic electro-optic layer 30”) located
over the first electrode (20),
a plurality of first metal-containing layers (40 – Fig. 2 – [0089] – “patterned
electrically conductive layer 40”) having a light shielding property located over the organic layer (30),
a metal compound-containing layer (50 – Fig. 2 – [0089] – “a second,
transparent, electrode layer 50”) having a light transmitting property ([0006] – “The transparent electrode should transmit a substantial amount, i.e. at least 50%, preferably at least 80% of photon radiation impingent thereon”) covering the plurality of first metal-containing layers (40), and
a second metal-containing layer having a light transmitting property covering the metal compound-containing layer (40).
Hermes does not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 1.
However, in an analogous art, Kitahara teaches
a first electrode having a light transmitting property ([0070] – “first electrode 110 has light-transmitting properties”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the electrode light transmission structure as taught by Kitahara into Hermes.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Kitahara in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result [0008] – “of the problem to be solved by the present invention is to prevent a luminous intensity in a standard direction and a surrounding direction thereof in a light distribution even when an OLED having a microcavity is inclined from the standard direction.”
Hermes and Kitahara do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 1.
However, in an analogous art, Yamazaki teaches
a light shielding property (Fig. 1B – {[0061] – “auxiliary wiring 111”}, {[0021] – “Light emitted from the light-emitting element is shielded in a region where the auxiliary wiring in contact with the light-transmitting electrode is provided”}).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the first metal-containing layers having a light shielding structure as taught by Yamazaki into Hermes and Kitahara.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Yamazaki in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result [0021] – “Light emitted from the light-emitting element is shielded in a region where the auxiliary wiring in contact with the light-transmitting electrode is provided, and thus the region where the auxiliary wiring is provided is a no-light-emitting region. However, the width of the auxiliary wiring is 100 .mu.m or less, so that the no-light-emitting region is hardly perceived with the naked eye and luminance can be obtained uniformly. When the light-emitting device is used as a lighting device, for example, favorable planar light-emission can be obtained without a light diffusion sheet or the like.”
Hermes, Kitahara, and Yamazaki do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 1.
However, in an analogous art, Kitamura teaches
a second metal-containing layer (19 – Fig. 1 – [0020] – “The second electrode
20 is constituted of an Al layer 18 and an Ag layer 19 disposed from the side of the organic layer 16, and the thickness of the Al layer 18 is from 0.1 nm to 10 nm, while the thickness of the Ag layer 19 is from 3 nm to 50 nm”) having a light transmitting property (19 – fig. 1 – [0044] – “An Ag layer 19 having such a thickness may have the electrical conductivity required of an electrode along with the Al electrode, as well as transparency with respect to the light emitted from the light emitting layer”) covering the metal compound-containing layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the second metal-containing layer structure as taught by Kitamura into Hermes, Kitahara, and Yamazaki.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Kitamura in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0007] – “The electrodes are selected by taking account of electrical conductivity, light transparency, light reflectivity, film formability and the like, but it is necessary that an electrode having light transparency is formed at least at the side of extracting the light from the light emitting layer.”
Regarding claim 2, Hermes as modified by Kitahara, Yamazaki, and Kitamura teaches claim 1 from which claim 2 depends. Hermes further teaches
(Original) The light-emitting device according to claim 1,
wherein each of the plurality of first metal-containing layers (40) is surrounded (43 – Fig. 1A – [0093] – “ the patterned electrically conductive layer is a hexagonal maze, having elongated electrically conductive elements 41 that define openings 43” – these correspond to light-transmitting units) by a light-transmitting unit (Fig. 1 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘LTU’).
PNG
media_image1.png
425
829
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Hermes as modified by Kitahara, Yamazaki, and Kitamura teaches claim 1 from which claim 4 depends. Hermes, Kitahara, and Yamazaki do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 4.
However, in an analogous art, Kitamura teaches
(Currently Amended) The light-emitting device according to claim 1
wherein the metal compound-containing layer (18 – Fig. 1 – {[0042] – “An Al layer 18 having such thickness may function as an electrode (cathode) supplying electrons to the organic layer 16, may also protect the organic layer 16 from the Ag layer 19 formed over the Al layer 18, and may have transparency with respect to the light emitted from the light emitting layer.”}, {[0085] – “As for the electron donor to be introduced into the hole injection layer or the hole transport layer, inorganic compounds as well as organic compounds can all be used as long as they are electron-accepting and have a property of oxidizing an organic compound. Specific examples of the inorganic compounds that may be suitably used include halides such as ferric chloride, aluminum chloride, gallium chloride, indium chloride, and antimony pentachloride, and metal oxides such as molybdenum oxide, vanadium oxide and ruthenium oxide” – 18 supplies/donates electrons thus can contain the metal oxide necessary to perform this function) comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of molybdenum oxide, tungsten oxide, vanadium oxide, titanium oxide, tantalum oxide, rhenium oxide, and zinc sulfide.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the metal-compound containing layer materials as taught by Kitamura into Hermes, Kitahara, and Yamazaki.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Kitamura in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0085] – “As for the electron donor to be introduced into the hole injection layer or the hole transport layer, inorganic compounds as well as organic compounds can all be used as long as they are electron-accepting and have a property of oxidizing an organic compound.”
Regarding claim 5, Hermes as modified by Kitahara, Yamazaki, and Kitamura teaches claim 1 from which claim 5 depends. Hermes, Kitahara, and Yamazaki do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 5.
However, in an analogous art, Kitamura teaches
(Currently Amended) The light-emitting device according to claim 1,
wherein the second metal-containing layer (19) comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of silver, gold, and copper ([0020] – “The second electrode 20 is constituted of an Al layer 18 and an Ag layer 19”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the second metal-containing layer materials as taught by Kitamura into Hermes, Kitahara, and Yamazaki.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Kitamura in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0009] – “An organic electroluminescent element having, as a cathode, a transparent calcium (Ca) layer (electron injection layer) and a transparent silver (Ag) layer (coating layer) formed on an organic layer has also been proposed”.
Regarding claim 6, Hermes as modified by Kitahara, Yamazaki, and Kitamura teaches claim 1 from which claim 6 depends. Hermes, Kitahara, and Yamazaki do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 6.
However, in an analogous art, Kitamura teaches
(Currently Amended) The light-emitting device according to claim 1
wherein a thickness of the second metal-containing layer (19) is equal to or greater than 6.0 nm and equal to or less than 15 nm (19 – Fig. 1 – [0044] – “the thickness of the Ag layer 19 is preferably from 5 nm to 30 nm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the thickness of the second metal-containing layer as taught by Kitamura into Hermes, Kitahara, and Yamazaki.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Kitamura in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0019] – “an organic electroluminescent element that suppresses the occurrence of short circuits, has high electron injectability into the organic layer, and is driven at a low voltage, while suppressing any voltage increase resulting from the use of the element, may be obtained by sequentially forming an Al layer and an Ag layer, which are both highly stable, to their respective specific thicknesses, as a second electrode (cathode) on an organic layer.”
Although the thickness of the second metal-containing layer as taught by Kitamura does not match the applicant’s range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to manufacture the layer in the applicant’s range which is tighter than Kitamura’s range due to thinner metal layers equates to smoother layers and a greater light transmittance because of less material blocking the light, therefore it’s best to stay at the low end of the range for best emission levels.
To do so would have merely been obvious to try to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. E.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermes in view of Kitahara, Yamazaki, Kitamura, and Yoshida (WO 2018116894 A1 – hereinafter Yoshida).
Regarding claim 3, Hermes as modified by Kitahara, Yamazaki, and Kitamura teaches claim 2 from which claim 3 depends. Hermes further teaches
the first metal-containing layers (40),
the light-transmitting unit (LTU) between the first metal-containing layers (40).
Hermes, Kitahara, Yamazaki, and Kitamura do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 3.
However, in an analogous art, Yoshida teaches
(Original) The light-emitting device according to claim 2,
wherein a ratio of a width (D3 – Fig. 5 – [0053] – “width d3 of region Rc” – ‘Rc’
corresponds to the non-light-emitting area) of each of the first metal-containing layers to a width (D1 – Fig. 5 – [0053] – “width d1 of region Ra” – ‘Ra’ corresponds to the light-emitting unit) of the light-transmitting unit between the first metal-containing layers adjacent to each other is equal to or greater than 0.50 and equal to or less than 1.7 ([0054] – “the ratio d3/d1 of the width d3 of region Rc to the width d1 of region Ra is 0.3 or more and 2 or less (0.3≦d3 /d1≦2)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the ratio of the width of the non-light-transmitting areas to the width of the light-transmitting areas as taught by Yoshida into Hermes, Kitahara, Yamazaki, and Kitamura.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Yoshida in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result [0017] – “to
maintain a high light transmittance of the light-emitting device 10..
Although the width ratio as taught by Yoshida does not match the applicant’s range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to manufacture the widths in the applicant’s range which is tighter than Yoshida’s range due to maintaining or increasing the light transmittance due to an increase area of transmittance relative to non-light-transmitting area.
To do so would have merely been obvious to try to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. E.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to GARY ABEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-0246. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm (Eastern).
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, CHAD M DICKE can be reached on (571) 270-7996. 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 ttps://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.
/GRA/
Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897