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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaiho (US 2021/0193975 A1) in view of Hiroki et al. (US 2012/0252150 A1; hereinafter “Hiroki”).
Regarding claim 1, Kaiho teaches a method for fabricating a light-emitting device, comprising the steps of: forming a light-emitting layer (11) comprising a first organic compound (a phosphorescent organometallic complex such as iridium/platinum complexes) and a second organic compound (a polymeric material such as polyfluorene and derivatives thereof) over a substrate (3) provided with a first electrode (5) (Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 20-30 and 43-53); holding the substrate under lighting of a light source whose shortest-wavelength emission edge among emission edges in an emission spectrum is positioned at a wavelength shorter than the wavelength of a longest-wavelength absorption edge among absorption edges in an absorption spectrum of the first organic compound and longer than the wavelength of a longest-wavelength absorption edge among absorption edges in an absorption spectrum of the second organic compound (a storing step in yellow light, which is approximately between 570 nm - 600 nm, that does not include light having a wavelength range of 500 nm or less. This is identical to the light source having lighting at the wavelength from the instant application described in paragraphs 92-94) (Fig. 2 and paragraphs 67-74); and forming a second electrode (17) over the light-emitting layer (Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 63-66).
Kaiho does not explicitly teach that the light-emitting layer is formed by forming a sacrificial layer over the light-emitting layer; and processing at least the light-emitting layer into an island shape by a photolithography method. Hiroki teaches a method for fabricating a light-emitting device, comprising: forming a light-emitting layer (13a before patterning) over a substrate (10); forming a sacrificial layer (20) over the light-emitting layer; and processing at least the light-emitting layer into an island shape (13a after patterning having an island shape) by a photolithography method (Figs. 1A-1B and 2A-2H and paragraphs 62-98). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Kaiho with that of Hiroki in order to form/pattern the light-emitting layer having the desired shape by the conventional photobiography method.
Regarding claim 2, Kaiho in view of Hiroki teaches wherein at least part of the sacrificial layer over the light-emitting layer is removed (Hiroki, Figs. 2D-2H and paragraphs 81-98), and wherein the substrate is held under the lighting (Kaiho, Fig. 2 and paragraph 72).
Regarding claim 3, Kaiho teaches wherein the first organic compound emits phosphorescent light (paragraphs 44-48).
Regarding claim 4, Kaiho teaches wherein the first organic compound is a metal complex (paragraphs 47-48).
Regarding claim 5, Kaiho teaches wherein a lowest triplet excitation energy level of the first organic compound is lower than a lowest triplet excitation energy level of the second organic compound (the triple excitation energy of the phosphorescent organometallic complex is lower than that of the polymeric material) (paragraphs 43-53).
Regarding claim 6, Kaiho teaches wherein a HOMO level of the second organic compound is higher than or equal to −5.7 eV (for example, the polymeric material such as polyfluorene is has HOMO higher than or equal to −5.7 eV) (paragraphs 49-50).
Regarding claim 7, Kaiho teaches wherein the shortest-wavelength emission edge among the emission edges in the emission spectrum of the light source is positioned at 430 nm or longer (paragraphs 67-74, yellow light, which is approximately between 570 nm - 600 nm).
Regarding claim 8, Kaiho teaches wherein the substrate is held in an atmosphere (paragraph 72, clean dry air atmosphere). While Kaiho does not explicitly teach that the atmosphere comprises oxygen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to understand that oxygen would be included in clean dry air atmosphere taught from Kaiho as readily included gas in the atmosphere.
Regarding claim 9, Kaiho teaches a method for fabricating a light-emitting device, comprising the steps of: forming a light-emitting layer (11) comprising a first organic compound (a phosphorescent organometallic complex such as iridium/platinum complexes) and a second organic compound (a polymeric material such as polyfluorene and derivatives thereof) over a substrate (3) provided with a first electrode (5) (Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 20-30 and 43-53); holding the substrate under lighting of a light source whose shortest-wavelength emission edge among emission edges in an emission spectrum is positioned at a wavelength shorter than the wavelength of a longest-wavelength absorption edge among absorption edges in an absorption spectrum of the first organic compound and longer than the wavelength of a longest-wavelength absorption edge among absorption edges in an absorption spectrum of the second organic compound (a storing step in yellow light, which is approximately between 570 nm - 600 nm, that does not include light having a wavelength range of 500 nm or less. This is identical to the light source having lighting at the wavelength from the instant application described in paragraphs 92-94) (Fig. 2 and paragraphs 67-74); and forming a second electrode (17) over the light-emitting layer (Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 63-66).
Kaiho does not explicitly teach that the light-emitting layer is formed by forming a sacrificial layer over the light-emitting layer; processing at least the light-emitting layer into an island shape by a photolithography method; and removing at least part of the sacrificial layer over the light-emitting layer. Hiroki teaches a method for fabricating a light-emitting device, comprising: forming a light-emitting layer (13a before patterning) over a substrate (10); forming a sacrificial layer (20) over the light-emitting layer; processing at least the light-emitting layer into an island shape (13a after patterning having an island shape) by a photolithography method; and removing at least part of the sacrificial layer over the light-emitting layer (Figs. 1A-1B and 2A-2H and paragraphs 62-98). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Kaiho with that of Hiroki in order to form/pattern the light-emitting layer having the desired shape by the conventional photobiography method.
Regarding claim 10, Kaiho teaches wherein the first organic compound emits phosphorescent light (paragraphs 44-48).
Regarding claim 11, Kaiho teaches wherein the first organic compound is a metal complex (paragraphs 47-48).
Regarding claim 12, Kaiho teaches wherein a lowest triplet excitation energy level of the first organic compound is lower than a lowest triplet excitation energy level of the second organic compound (the triple excitation energy of the phosphorescent organometallic complex is lower than that of the polymeric material) (paragraphs 43-53).
Regarding claim 13, Kaiho teaches wherein a HOMO level of the second organic compound is higher than or equal to −5.7 eV (for example, the polymeric material such as polyfluorene is has HOMO higher than or equal to −5.7 eV) (paragraphs 49-50).
Regarding claim 14, Kaiho teaches wherein the shortest-wavelength emission edge among the emission edges in the emission spectrum of the light source is positioned at 430 nm or longer (paragraphs 67-74, yellow light, which is approximately between 570 nm - 600 nm).
Regarding claim 15, Kaiho teaches wherein the substrate is held in an atmosphere (paragraph 72, clean dry air atmosphere). While Kaiho does not explicitly teach that the atmosphere comprises oxygen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to understand that oxygen would be included in clean dry air atmosphere taught from Kaiho as readily included gas in the atmosphere.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kaiho does not teach the claimed relationship between the emission wavelength of the light source and the absorption wavelengths of the first and second organic compounds since Kaiho is silent regarding absorption spectra of the phosphorescent organometallic complex and the polymeric material. However, this argument is not found persuasive for reasons as follow:
Claim 1 is directed to holding a light-emitting layer comprising a first organic compound and a second organic compound formed over a substrate under lighting at a certain wavelength range (See claim 1 reciting “forming a light-emitting layer comprising a first organic compound and a second organic compound over a substrate provided with a first electrode; holding the substrate under lighting of a light source whose shortest-wavelength emission edge among emission edges in an emission spectrum is positioned at a wavelength”). Then, the claimed wavelength range of the lighting is described as “a wavelength shorter than the wavelength of a longest-wavelength absorption edge among absorption edges in an absorption spectrum of the first organic compound and longer than the wavelength of a longest-wavelength absorption edge among absorption edges in an absorption spectrum of the second organic compound”. The specification of the instant application describes that such wavelength range of the lighting is between 430 nm and 600 nm (paragraphs 92-94). Furthermore, as a preferred embodiment, the specification of the instant application describes such wavelength range of the lighting is yellow lighting, which does not include a light wavelength shorter than 500 nm (paragraph 94).
First, it is noted that claim 1 does not require any specific organic compounds for the first and second organic compounds included in the light-emitting layer [underlying for clarity]. Second, Kaiho teaches holding the light-emitting layer comprising the claimed first and second organic compounds under lighting with the wavelength identical to that of the claim and that of the invention (See the rejection of claim 1 and paragraphs 92-94 in the specification of the instant application). Third, claim 1 does not require any additional feature to distinguish over Kaiho teaching such identical holding processing step and compositions for the light-emitting layer. Lastly, assuming, arguendo, that specific types of the organic compounds for the light-emitting layer are recited in the claim for the first and second organic compounds, Kaiho even teaches identical organic compounds for the light-emitting layer (see, for example, the rejection of claims 3-4, which depend from claim 1). Therefore, since Kaiho teaches the method of holding the light-emitting layer comprising the first and second organic compounds under the lighting at the wavelength identical to that of the claim and that of the invention structurally and compositionally and since claim 1 does not additionally require any feature to distinguish over Kaiho teaching such identical holding step for the light-emitting layer comprising the identical first and second organic compounds, claimed characteristics/property of the wavelength of the lighting (“a wavelength shorter than the wavelength of a longest-wavelength absorption edge among absorption edges in an absorption spectrum of the first organic compound and longer than the wavelength of a longest-wavelength absorption edge among absorption edges in an absorption spectrum of the second organic compound”) would be inherent: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and MPEP 2112.01.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANIEL B WHALEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3418. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8AM-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, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571)272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL WHALEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893