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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 20, 2023 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 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, 3, 7, 10, 11, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kim et al (US Pub 2022/0093878).
In re claim 1, Kim et al discloses a light-emitting device comprising: a first electrode (i.e. 11); a second electrode (i.e. 19) facing the first electrode; and an interlayer (i.e. 10A) between the first electrode and the second electrode and comprising an emission layer (i.e. 15), wherein the emission layer comprises a sensitizer and an emitter (i.e. seat least paragraph 0035), wherein a spectral overlap integral of an emission spectrum of the sensitizer and an absorption spectrum of the emitter is at least 1 x 1013 M-1cm4 (i.e. see at least paragraph 0045), a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) energy level of the sensitizer is higher than a HOMO energy level of the emitter (i.e. in this case, Kim et al discloses the sensitizer is a transition metal-containing organometallic compound (i.e. see at least paragraph 0158), as in the instant application, and the emitter is a compound comprising at least one boron (B) (i.e. see at least paragraph 0205), as in the instant application; thus, it would have been inherent or obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the HOMO energy level of the sensitizer is higher than a HOMO energy level of the emitter), and the spectral overlap integral is evaluated by Equation 1 (i.e. paragraph 0045), and wherein, in Equation 1, J(λ) is the spectral overlap integral of the emission spectrum of the sensitizer and the absorption spectrum of the emitter, ε(λ) is a molar extinction coefficient of the emitter calculated from the absorption spectrum of the emitter, λ is a wavelength of the emission spectrum and the absorption spectrum, and FD(λ) is a normalized emission spectrum of the sensitizer (i.e. see at least paragraphs 0045-0048).
In re claim 3, Kim et al discloses wherein J(λ) is 1 x 1013, which is less than 4 x 1014 (i.e. paragraph 0045).
In re claim 7, Kim et al discloses the sensitizer is a transition metal-containing organometallic compound (i.e. see at least paragraph 0158).
In re claim 10, Kim et al discloses wherein the sensitizer does not comprise a ring comprising at least two nitrogen (N) atoms as ring-forming atoms (i.e. paragraph 0158).
In re claim 11, Kim et al discloses the emitter is a compound comprising at least one boron (B) (i.e. see at least paragraph 0205).
In re claim 18, the recitation “an electronic apparatus” in the claim 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, the recitation “an electronic equipment” in the claim 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 12-17, and 19 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