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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2/26/2024 and 4/29/2025 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract is consistent with the requirements set forth in the MPEP 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-5 and 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: the first recitation of HOMO in claims 4 and 9 should be written in its expanded form - Highest Occupied Molecular Orbital (HOMO) and LUMO in claims 5 and 9 should also be written in its expanded form – Lowest Unoccupied Molecular Orbital (LUMO), before the abbreviations can be used throughout the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scholz et al. US PGPub. 2025/0287776 in view of Kimura et al. US PGPub. 2021/0008872. Regarding claim 1, Scholz teaches a light-emitting device (200, fig. 1) [0383] comprising: a first electrode (120, fig. 1) [0310]; a second electrode (190, fig. 1) [0310]; and an organic compound layer (layers 181-130, fig. 1; examiner’s fig. 1), wherein the organic compound layer (181-130) is positioned between the first electrode (120) and the second electrode (190), wherein the organic compound layer (181-130) comprises a first light-emitting unit (1LEU, examiner’s fig. 1), a second light-emitting unit (2LEU, examiner’s fig. 1), and an intermediate layer (162, fig.1 and examiner’s fig. 1) [0311], wherein the intermediate layer (162) is positioned between the first light-emitting unit (1LEU) and the second light-emitting unit (2LEU), wherein the first light-emitting unit (1LEU) is positioned between the first electrode (120) and the intermediate layer (162), wherein the first light-emitting unit (1LEU) comprises a first light-emitting layer (150, fig. 1) [0310] and a first electron-transport layer (161, fig. 1) [0310], wherein the first electron-transport layer (161) is in (directly, fig. 1) contact with the intermediate layer (162), wherein the intermediate layer (162) is configured to block holes (162 is a second electron transport layer with energy levels controlled so holes may be efficiently blocked, [0290]]) moving from the first electrode side (120) to the second electrode side (190) (Scholz et al., fig. 1). But Scholz fails to teach wherein the first electron-transport layer (161) is a layer having a bipolar property. However, Kimura teaches a light-emitting device [0002] wherein the electron-transport layer [0137] is a layer having a bipolar property [0137] (Kimura et al., [00137]). At the time before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the electron-transport layer of Scholz with the electron-transport layer having bi-polar property as taught by Kimura because such material is well known in the art and such material is art recognized and suitable for the intended purpose of coping with various energy levels (Kimura et al., [0137]) as well as improvement in electron transfer (Kimura et al., [0138]) (see MPEP 2144.07).
PNG
media_image1.png
837
804
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Fig. 1 Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scholz et al. US PGPub. 2025/0287776 in view of Kimura et al. US PGPub. 2021/0008872 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Hara et al. US PGPub. 2021/0151689. Regarding claim 2, Scholz in view of Kimura does not teach the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the first electron-transport layer (161) comprises an organic compound having an electron-transport skeleton and a hole-transport skeleton. However, Hara teaches a light-emitting device (150, fig. 1A) [0110] wherein the first electron-transport layer (118, fig. 1A) [0112] comprises an organic compound having an electron-transport skeleton and a hole-transport skeleton [0094] (Hara et al., [0094]). At the time before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the electron-transport layer of Scholz with the electron-transport layer of Hara because such electron-transport layer having both electron-transport and hole-transport skeletons is well known in the art and such material is art recognized and suitable for the intended purpose of creating a light-emitting device that can be driven at low voltages due to its high carrier-transport property (Hara et al., [0094]) (see MPEP 2144.07). Regarding claim 3, Scholz in view of Kimura and Hara teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 2, wherein the electron-transport skeleton is a π-electron deficient heteroaromatic ring [0095], and wherein the hole-transport skeleton is a π-electron rich heteroaromatic ring [0095] (Hara et al., [0095]) Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scholz et al. US PGPub. 2025/0287776 in view of Ogita et al. US PGPub. 2021/0013419.
Regarding claim 4, Scholz teaches a light-emitting device (200, fig. 1) [0383] comprising: a first electrode (120, fig. 1) [0310]; a second electrode (190, fig. 1) [0310]; and an organic compound layer (layers 181-130, fig. 1; examiner’s fig. 1), wherein the organic compound layer (181-130) is positioned between the first electrode (120) and the second electrode (190), wherein the organic compound layer (181-130) comprises a first light-emitting unit (1LEU, examiner’s fig. 1), a second light-emitting unit (2LEU, examiner’s fig. 1), and an intermediate layer (162, fig.1 and examiner’s fig. 1) [0311], wherein the intermediate layer (162) is positioned between the first light-emitting unit (1LEU) and the second light-emitting unit (2LEU), wherein the first light-emitting unit (1LEU) is positioned between the first electrode (120) and the intermediate layer (162), wherein the first light-emitting unit (1LEU) comprises a first light-emitting layer (150, fig. 1) [0310] and a first electron-transport layer (161, fig. 1) [0310], wherein the first electron-transport layer (161) is in (directly, fig. 1) contact with the intermediate layer (162), wherein the intermediate layer (162) is configured to block holes (162 is a second electron transport layer with energy levels controlled so holes may be efficiently blocked, [0290]]) moving from the first electrode side (120) to the second electrode side (190) (Scholz et al., fig. 1). But Scholz fails to teach wherein a HOMO level of an organic compound having the highest HOMO level among organic compounds included in the first electron-transport layer (161) is greater than or equal to −5.90 eV and less than or equal to −5.00 eV. However, Ogita teaches a light-emitting device (fig. 1A) [0039], wherein a HOMO level of an organic compound having the highest HOMO level among organic compounds included in the first electron-transport layer (114, fig. 1A) [0203] is greater than or equal to −5.90 eV and less than or equal to −5.00 eV (greater than -6.0eV, [0204]) (Ogita et al., fig. 1A, [0204]). Accordingly, at the time before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to combine the teaching of Scholz with that of Ogita by using an electron-transport layer having HOMO levels in the range as claimed in order to prevent the light emitting layer from having excess electrons (Ogita et al., [0206]), because it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are discloses in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scholz et al. US PGPub. 2025/0287776 in view of Ogita et al. US PGPub. 2021/0013419 as applied to claim 4 above and further in view of Seo et al. US PGPub. 2013/0292656.
Regarding claim 5, Scholz in view of Ogita does not teach the light-emitting device according to claim 4, wherein a LUMO level of an organic compound having the lowest LUMO level among the organic compounds included in the first electron-transport layer (161) is greater than or equal to −3.15 eV and less than or equal to −2.50 eV. However, Seo teaches a light-emitting device (fig. 1A) [0071], wherein a LUMO level of an organic compound having the lowest LUMO level among the organic compounds included in the first electron-transport layer (107, fig. 1A) [0071] is greater than or equal to −3.15 eV and less than or equal to −2.50 eV (-2.94, [0247]) (Seo et al., [0247]). Accordingly, at the time before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to combine the teaching of Scholz with that of Ogita by using an electron-transport layer having LUMO levels in the range as claimed in order to provide a light-emitting device with high external quantum efficiency and high emission efficiency (Seo et al., [0245]), because it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are discloses in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05. Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scholz et al. US PGPub. 2025/0287776 in view of Ogita et al. US PGPub. 2021/0013419 as applied to claim 4 above and further in view of Hara et al. US PGPub. 2021/0151689.
Regarding claim 6, Scholz in view of Ogita does not teach the light-emitting device according to claim 4, wherein the first electron-transport layer (161) comprises an organic compound having an electron-transport skeleton and a hole-transport skeleton. However, Hara teaches a light-emitting device (150, fig. 1A) [0110] wherein the first electron-transport layer (118, fig. 1A) [0112] comprises an organic compound having an electron-transport skeleton and a hole-transport skeleton [0094] (Hara et al., [0094]). At the time before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the electron-transport layer of Scholz with the electron-transport layer of Hara because such electron-transport layer having both electron-transport and hole-transport skeletons is well known in the art and such material is art recognized and suitable for the intended purpose of creating a light-emitting device that can be driven at low voltages due to its high carrier-transport property (Hara et al., [0094]) (see MPEP 2144.07). Regarding claim 7, Scholz in view of Ogita and Hara teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 6, wherein the electron-transport skeleton is a π-electron deficient heteroaromatic ring [0095], and wherein the hole-transport skeleton is a π-electron rich heteroaromatic ring [0095] (Hara et al., [0095])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-14 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior arts of record taken alone or in combination neither anticipates nor renders obvious a light-emitting device comprising “an intermediate layer, wherein the intermediate layer is positioned between the first light-emitting unit and the second light-emitting unit” in combination with th limitation wherein “the first electron-transport layer is in contact with the intermediate layer, wherein the intermediate layer comprises an organic compound having basicity with an acid dissociation constant pKa of 8 or more, and wherein a HOMO level of an organic compound having the highest HOMO level among organic compounds included in the first electron-transport layer is greater than or equal to −5.90 eV and less than or equal to −5.00 eV” as recited in claim 8. Claims 9-14 are also allowed for further limiting and depending upon allowed claim 8. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NDUKA E OJEH whose telephone number is (571)270-0291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 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, DREW N RICHARDS can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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.
/NDUKA E OJEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892