DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Following prior arts are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220416190 A1 (Zhang)
US 20200106024 A1 (Seo)
US 20210320254 A1 (hereinafter Sim54)
US 20190189723 A1 (hereinafter Kim23)
Kwon et. al. “Efficient micro-cavity top emission OLED with optimized Mg:Ag ratio cathode “, Optics Express 29906, Vol 25, No. 24 , 27 Nov 2017 (hereinafter Kwon)
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim rejection have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Theses claims now claimed specific property ranges for specific injection layer and cathode material with specific thickness (as amended in claim 1). Specification generally recites these range in generic term. No support was found that the whole ranges was achieved with the specific material-thickness combinations. No prior art rejections have been found for claims 2-3 and 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8-9, 11-14, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang.
Zhang teaches following claims as indicated below:
1. A light-emitting device [(Fig. 1; para 50, 79)] comprising: an anode [(#2)] : a cathode facing the anode: [(#11)] and an interlayer between the anode and the cathode [(layers 3-10)] , wherein the interlayer comprises: an emission layer:[(#6-7)] and an electron transport region [(#8-10, para 54 )] between the emission layer and the cathode the electron transport region comprises an electron injection layer adjacent to the cathode, [(#10)] ,
the electron injection layer consists of lithium (Li) [(para 79)] , and
the cathode consists of silver (Ag).[[(para 79)]
a thickness of the electron injection layer is in a range of about 5 Å to about 20 Å.[[(para 79; thickness of 0.5-2 nm)]
a thickness of the cathode is in a range of about 80 Å to about 150 Å. [(para 79; 10-20 nm )]
8. The light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein the emission layer comprises a host and a dopant.[[(Abstract )]
9. The light-emitting device of claim 8, wherein the dopant is a phosphorescent dopant or a delayed fluorescence dopant. [(Abstract)]
11. The light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein the interlayer further comprises a hole transport region between the anode and the emission layer. [(#3-5)]
12. The light-emitting device of claim 11, wherein the hole transport region comprises at least one of a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a buffer layer, an auxiliary layer, and an electron blocking layer. [(HIL)]
13. The light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein the electron transport region further comprises at least one of a hole blocking layer and an electron transport layer. . [(HBL)]
14. The light-emitting device of claim 1, further comprising: a capping layer disposed outside the anode or outside the cathode. . [(para 79)]
18. An electronic apparatus comprising the light-emitting device of claim 1. [(Abstract)]
20. An electronic equipment comprising the light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein the electronic equipment is a flat panel display, a curved display, a computer monitor, a medical monitor, a television (TV), an advertisement board, an indoor light, an outdoor light, a signal light, a head-up display, a fully transparent display, a partially transparent display, a flexible display, a rollable display, a foldable display, a stretchable display, a laser printer, a telephone, a mobile phone, a tablet, a phablet, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a wearable device, a laptop computer, a digital camera, a camcorder, a viewfinder, a microdisplay, a three-dimensional (3D) display, a virtual reality display, an augmented reality display, a vehicle, a video wall including multiple displays tiled together, a theater screen, a stadium screen, a phototherapy device, or a sign. [(Zhang para 104)]
Claims 1, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seo.
Seo teaches w.r.t.. claim 1. A light-emitting device [(para 4)] comprising: an anode [(#110, para 276)] : a cathode facing the anode: [(#190, para 457)] and an interlayer between the anode and the cathode [(layer 150)] , wherein the interlayer comprises: an emission layer:[(para 279)] and an electron transport region between the emission layer and the cathode the electron transport region comprises an electron injection layer adjacent to the cathode, [(para 4, 280)] ,
the electron injection layer consists of lithium (Li) [(para 264)] , and
the cathode consists of silver (Ag).[[(para 458)]
a thickness of the electron injection layer is in a range of about 5 Å to about 20 Å.[[(para 456)]
a thickness of the cathode is in a range of about 80 Å to about 150 Å. [(para 502; cathode with thickness of 130 A )]
Seo additionally teaches, w.r.t. 21. The light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein the electron injection layer further comprises an electron transport compound, and the electron transport compound is a phenanthroline-based compound. [(para 100 )]
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Sim54.
Regarding Claim 10. Zhang does not explicitly show wherein the interlayer further comprises a hole transport region between the anode and the emission layer
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Sim54 teaches the interlayer further comprises a hole transport region between the anode and the emission layer. [(para 236)]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities. Zhang and Sim54 both describing OLED display device with similar structure, Sim54’s emission layer’s quantum dot can be used to perform the same function in Zhang.
Sim54 additionally teaches, w.r.t. 21. The light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein the electron injection layer further comprises an electron transport compound, and the electron transport compound is a phenanthroline-based compound. [(para 290-291 )]
Claims 15-17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Kim23.
Regarding Claim 15. Zhang does not explicitly show a plurality of emitting units, and one or more charge generation units, each between adjacent ones among the plurality of emitting units
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Kim23 teaches a plurality of emitting units, and one or more charge generation units, each between adjacent ones among the plurality of emitting units [(para 76)]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities. [(Zhang; Kim23 para 4; both describing OLED display device)]
16. The light-emitting device of claim 15, wherein at least one of the emitting units emits light having a maximum emission wavelength in a range of about 410 nm to about 490 nm. [(Zhang blue in para 73; blue light falls in this range)]
17. The light-emitting device of claim 15, wherein at least one of the emitting units emits light having a maximum emission wavelength in a range of about 490 nm to about 580 nm. [(Zhang green in para 73; green light falls in this range)]
19. The electronic apparatus of claim 18, further comprising: a thin-film transistor, wherein the thin-film transistor comprises a source electrode and a drain electrode, and the anode of the light-emitting device is electrically connected to at least one of the source electrode and the drain electrode. [(Zhang para 101, Kim23 para 76)]
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 extension fee 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 Shahan Rahaman whose telephone number is (571)270-1438. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 3:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4195. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SHAHAN UR RAHAMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights