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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, 11, 14-16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (US 6,284,394) in view of Wolfram (NPL “Resistivity of the Elements”).
[claim 1] Arai discloses a light-emitting device (fig. 1) comprising: a first electrode (2, fig. 1, lines 14-18, col. 7); a second electrode (3, fig. 1, lines 14-18, col. 7) facing the first electrode; an emission layer (5, fig. 1, lines 14-18, col. 7) between the first electrode and the second electrode; and an electron transport region (6, fig. 1, lines 14-18, col. 7) between the second electrode and the emission layer, wherein the electron transport region comprises an electron injection layer (6, fig. 1, lines 14-18, col. 7) comprising a first material and a second material (the second component may comprise two elemental metals see lines 14-30, col. 4, for example the metals may be Zn and Sm in order to use low resistivity metal to create hopping paths in the electron injection layer, lines 26-30, col. 4), and the first material and the second material are different from each other (fig. 1). Arai, however, does not expressly disclose using Mg and Yb as the metal materials for the electron injection layer (Zn and Sm are used instead).
Wolfram discloses a resistivity table of various elements that can achieve lower resistance values than those of Zn and Sm by using Mg and Yb (see NPL “Resistivity of the Elements” showing that Mg has lower resistivity than Zn and Yb has a lower resistivity than Sm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to have used Mg and Yb as elemental metals of the second component of Arai’s electron injection layer in order to a lower resistance value to promote create hopping paths as is desired by Arai and to improve device speed.
With this modification Arai discloses:
[claim 1] the first material and the second material are each independently an elemental metal selected from the group consisting of an alkali metal, an alkaline earth metal, a rare earth metal, and any combination thereof (Yb is a rare earth material, while Mg is a alkaline earth material)
[claim 2] The light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein the first material and the second material each independently comprise Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Sc, Y, Ce, Tb, Yb, Gd, Sm, or any combination thereof (up modification).
[claim 3]. The light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein the first material is Yb (upon modification).
[claim 4] The light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein the second material is Mg (upon modification).
[claim 5] The light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein the first material comprises a first metal, the second material comprises a second metal, and an atomic radius of the first metal is at least 1.3 times an atomic radius of the second meta (e.g atomic radius of Mg is 145 pm while that of La is 195 pm).
[claim 6] The light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein the first material comprises a first metal, the second material comprises a second metal, and a lattice parameter of the first metal is at least 1.2 times a lattice parameter of the second metal (e.g lattice parameter c of Mg is 0.52108 nm while that of La is 1.2144 nm).
[claim 9] The light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein the electron injection layer is a co-deposit of the first material and the second material (These limitations invoke the Product-by-Process doctrine. Product-by-process limitations are not limited by the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (MPEP 2113). Specifically co-depositing the first and second materials does not appear to structurally distinguish the invention over the resulting structure produced by the prior art. The burden to show that the claimed method necessarily distinguishes over the prior art is on the applicant).
.[claim 11] The light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein the electron injection layer and the second electrode are in direct contract with each other (fig. 1).
[claim 14] The light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein the first electrode is an anode (first electrode 2 injects holes and therefore is an anode), the second electrode is a cathode (second electrode 3 injects electrons and is therefore a cathode), and the light-emitting device further comprises a hole transport region (4, fig. 1) between the first electrode and the emission layer, wherein the hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer (4 is a hole injection layer, fig. 1, lines 14-18, col. 7), a hole transport layer, an emission auxiliary layer, an electron blocking layer, or any combination thereof.
[claim 15] The light-emitting device of claim 1, further comprising at least one of a first capping layer (substrate 1, fig. 1, which caps the bottom of electrode 2) outside the first electrode or a second capping layer outside the second electrode, wherein the at least one of the first capping layer or the second capping layer comprises a material having a refractive index of 1.6 or more at a wavelength of 589 nm (lines 64-67, col. 12 states that the substrate may be Si which has a refractive index above 3).
[claim 16] The light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein the emission layer is configured with the second electrode to emit light to outside of the light-emitting device through the second electrode (e.g. the second electron injection electrode 3 may be made very thin at 0.1 nm which is thin enough to permit light from emission layer to go through the electrode, lines 6-9, col. 8).
[claim 18] An electronic apparatus comprising the light-emitting device of claim 1 (fig. 1).
[claim 20] The electronic apparatus of claim 18, further comprising a color filter (lines 10-18, col. 13), a color conversion layer, a touch screen layer, a polarizing layer, or any combination thereof.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (US 6,284,394) in view of Wolfram (NPL “Resistivity of the Elements”).
Arai/Wolfram discloses the light emitting device of claim 1 but does not expressly disclose that the volume ratio of the first material to the second material is 1:0.1 to 1:0.5.
Nevertheless it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to have made the volume ratio of the first material to the second material is 1:0.1 to 1:0.5, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It also been held that the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The claimed range is a result-effective variable since the relative amount of metal oxide and metal would affect the conductivity of the electron injection layer.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (US 6,284,394) in view of Wolfram (NPL “Resistivity of the Elements”).
Arai/Wolfram discloses the light emitting device of claim 1 but does not expressly disclose that the amount of oxygen at an interface between the electron injection layer and a neighboring layer is less than or equal to 6 % based on 100 % of a total weight of elements at the interface.
Nevertheless it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to have made the amount of oxygen at an interface between the electron injection layer and a neighboring layer less than or equal to 6 % based on 100 % of a total weight of elements at the interface, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It also been held that the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The claimed range is a result-effective variable since the relative amount of oxygen and metal would affect the conductivity of the electron injection layer.
Claim(s) 13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (US 6,284,394) in view of Wolfram (NPL “Resistivity of the Elements”) and further in view of Kim (US 2018/0182991).
Arai discloses the light emitting device of claim 1 but does not expressly disclose an electron transport layer between the emission layer and the electron injection layer or that the emission layer is a reg, green, or blue emission layer.
Kim discloses a light emitting device with an electron transport layer (141, fig. 2) between the emission layer (130, fig. 2) and the electron injection layer (142, fig. 2) and where the emission layer is a reg, green, or blue emission layer [0098].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to have placed an electron transport layer between the emission layer and the electron injection layer and to have made the emission layer a red, green, or blue emission layer in order to provide a means to facilitate electron transport to the emission while effectively blocking holes as well as to provide a means to emit red, green, or blue light.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (US 6,284,394) in view of Wolfram (NPL “Resistivity of the Elements”) and further in view of Kim (US 10,003,041).
Arai discloses the light emitting device of claim 18 but does not expressly disclose a thin-film transistor, wherein the thin-film transistor comprises a source electrode and a drain electrode, and the first electrode of the light-emitting device is electrically connected to the source electrode or the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor.
Kim discloses a light emitting structure including a thin-film transistor, wherein the thin-film transistor (130, fig. 1) comprises a source electrode (131, fig. 1) and a drain electrode (132, fig. 1), and the first electrode (160, fig. 1) of the light-emitting device (LD, fig. 1) is electrically connected to the source electrode or the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to have used Kim’s driving thin film transistor for Arai’s light emitting device in order to provide a means to drive the light emitter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any interpretation applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMAR MOVVA whose telephone number is (571)272-9009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at 571-272-1864. 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.
/AMAR MOVVA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights