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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to application No. 18476056 filed on 09/27/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. These IDS has been considered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 01/06/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-13, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2022/0209161).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kim et al. teach a light-emitting device comprising:
a first electrode (Fig. 10, element 120, paragraph 0051);
a second electrode Fig. 10, element 170, paragraph 0051) facing the first electrode;
an emission layer (Fig. 10, elements 261a, 261b, 261c, paragraph 0051) between the first electrode and the second electrode; and
an electron transport region (Fig. 10, element 242, paragraph 0133) between the emission layer and the second electrode,
wherein the electron transport region comprises an electron injection layer (Fig. 10, element 160, paragraph 0068) comprising a first material and a second material (paragraph 0068, 0139 discloses first material Yb and second material Ag), the first material and the second material each independently comprise an alkali metal, an alkaline earth metal, a transition metal, a post-transition metal, a lanthanide metal, or a combination thereof, the second material does not comprise Mg,
the first material and the second material are different from each other (paragraph 0068, 0139 discloses first material Yb and second material Ag), and
a surface energy of the second material is greater than a surface energy of the first material (the materials are the same as the instant application, accordingly, the surface energy of the second material is greater than a surface energy of the first material).
Regarding claim 2, Kim et al. teach wherein the electron injection layer is a single layer (Fig. 10, paragraph 0068, 0139).
Regarding claim 3, Kim et al. teach wherein the first material is i) an alkali metal, an alkaline earth metal (Fig. 10, paragraph 0068, 0139), and/or a lanthanide metal, ii) a halide of an alkali metal, a halide of an alkaline earth metal, and/or a halide of a lanthanide metal, or iii) a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 4, Kim et al. teach wherein the first material is LiF or Yb (Fig. 10, paragraph 0068, 0139).
Regarding claim 5, Kim et al. teach wherein the second material comprises a transition metal or a post-transition metal (Fig. 10, paragraph 0068, 0139).
Regarding claim 6, Kim et al. teach wherein the second material is Ag, Au, Al, or a combination thereof (Fig. 10, paragraph 0068, 0139).
Regarding claim 7, Kim et al. teach wherein the surface energy of the second material is about 0.8 J/m.sup.2 or more (the second material Ag is the same as the instant application. Accordingly, the surface energy would be the same).
Regarding claim 8, Kim et al. teach wherein a volume of the first material included in the electron injection layer is greater than a volume of the second material included in the electron injection layer (paragraph 0152).
Regarding claim 9, Kim et al. teach wherein a volume ratio of the first material to the second material in the electron injection layer is about 0.2:1 to about 4:1 (paragraph 0152).
Regarding claim 10, Kim et al. teach wherein: the electron injection layer further comprises a third material comprising an alkali metal, an alkaline earth metal, a transition metal, a post-transition metal, a lanthanide metal, or a combination thereof, and the third material is different from the first material and the second material (paragraph 0061 discloses the cathode is Mg. Subsequently some Mg will diffuse into the EIL layer forming a three component EIL comprising Mg).
Regarding claim 11, Kim et al. teach wherein the third material comprises an alkaline earth metal (paragraph 0061 discloses the cathode is Mg. Subsequently some Mg will diffuse into the EIL layer forming a three component EIL comprising Mg).
Regarding claim 12, Kim et al. teach wherein the third material is Mg or Ca (paragraph 0061 discloses the cathode is Mg. Subsequently some Mg will diffuse into the EIL layer forming a three component EIL comprising Mg).
Regarding claim 13, Kim et al. teach wherein a radius of an atom of a metal included in the third material is less than a radius of an atom of a metal included in the first material (the materials are the same as the instant application, therefore, the radius will be the same).
Regarding claim 15, Kim et al. teach wherein a thickness of the electron injection layer is about 5 Å to about 20 Å (paragraph 0099).
Regarding claim 16, Kim et al. teach wherein the electron injection layer is formed by co-depositing the first material and the second material (Fig. 10, paragraph 0068, 0139 disclose the first and second material. Furthermore, this a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695,698,227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), MPEP §2113).
Regarding claim 17, Kim et al. teach wherein the electron injection layer is in direct contact with the second electrode (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 18, Kim et al. teach further comprising: a hole transport region between the first electrode and the emission layer, wherein: the hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer (Fig. 10, element 221, paragraph 0133), a hole transport layer (Fig. 10, element 222, paragraph 0133), an emission auxiliary layer, an electron blocking layer, or a combination thereof.
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 of this title, 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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2022/0209161).
Regarding claim 14, Kim et al. teach wherein a volume of the second material included in the electron injection layer is substantially equal to a volume of the third material included in the electron injection layer (paragraph 0152 discloses a range of volume for the materials in the electron injection layer. Therefore, the volume is an art recognized variable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the volume of materials and arrive at the claimed limitations. Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed volume is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHED AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-3477. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Steven Gauthier can be reached on 571-270-0373. 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.
/SHAHED AHMED/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights