LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME

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 . Response to Arguments The previously issued drawing objection is hereby withdrawn in view of the amended claims. The previously issued claim objection is hereby withdrawn in view of the amended claims. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 has been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Specification Objection The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: New drawings submitted 08/14/2026, specifically Figs. 1A, 1B, and 1C, should be updated into the Specification. Appropriate correction is required. (i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S): See MPEP § 608.01(f). A reference to and brief description of the drawing(s) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.74. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 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. Claims 1-9, 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2017/0186981 A1), hereafter “Han”, and further in view of Han et al. (US 2023/0038628 A1), hereafter “Han ‘628” As to claim 1, Han teaches a light-emitting device comprising: a first electrode (Fig. 1, 110, ⁋ [0046]); a second electrode facing the first electrode (190); and an interlayer (150) arranged between the first electrode and the second electrode and comprising an emission layer (⁋ [0052], “The organic layer 150 may include an emission layer”), wherein the interlayer further comprises: a first layer (⁋ [0036], “the first layer may be in direct contact with the second electrode”) arranged between the emission layer and the second electrode; and a second layer (⁋ [0036], “the second layer may be disposed between the first layer and the emission layer”) arranged between the first layer and the emission layer, the first layer comprises a first metal-containing material (⁋ [0030], The first layer may include two components selected from the first component… “; ⁋ [0016] shows various combinations of Li) the second layer comprises a second metal-containing material and a metal-free material (⁋ [0030], The second layer may include one component or two components selected from...the second component… “; ⁋ [0017] shows various metal complexes, such as Li, which may include phenanthroline), and a difference between a work function (W/F) of the first layer and a work function (W/F) of the second layer is in a range of about 0.05 eV to about 0.2 eV (the materials are the same as the instant application, accordingly, the difference between a W/F of the first layer and a W/F of the second layer is within the range). Han fails to explicitly teach four light-emitting units and three charge generation units between neighboring ones of the four light-emitting units, wherein a fourth light-emitting unit of the four light- emitting units comprises the emission layer, the first layer, and the second layer and emits green light. Examiner notes, however, Han does teach its emission layer can be a green mission layer (⁋ [0100]), and teaches the emission layer, first layer, and second layer as part of its light-emitting unit (previously stated within claim 1). Han ‘628 teaches a similar device with four light-emitting units (EL1-EL4, ⁋ [0066], Fig. 1) and three charge generations units (CGL1-CGL3, ⁋ [0067]) therein between, wherein the fourth light-emitting unit emits green light (⁋ [0124]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the teaching of the four light emitting units and charge units as taught by Han ‘628 into the device of Han for the purpose of preventing or reducing parasitic lighting, so that the display quality such as the color area characteristic and color linearity of the display device may be relatively improved (⁋ [0234]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the emission layer, first layer, and second layer as taught by Han with the fourth light-emitting unit taught by Han ‘628, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. As to claim 2, Han modified by Han ‘628 teaches the light-emitting device of claim 1, Han further teaches wherein an absolute value of the W/F of the first layer is in a range of about 2.5 eV to about 2.9 eV (the materials are the same as the instant application, accordingly, the absolute value of the W/F of the first layer is within range). As to claim 3, Han modified by Han ‘628 teaches the light-emitting device of claim 1, Han further teaches wherein an absolute value of the W/F of the second layer is in a range of about 2.4 eV to about 3.0 eV (the materials are the same as the instant application, accordingly, the absolute value of the W/F of the first layer is within range). As to claim 4, Han modified by Han ‘628 teaches the light-emitting device of claim 1, Han further teaches wherein a ratio of a thickness of the first layer to a thickness of the second layer is in a range of about 1:2 to about 1:25 (⁋ [0037], “5 Å to about 300 Å”). Examiner notes that if both the first layer and second layer had the same thickness the ratio would be 1:1, and at their biggest difference of thickness, wherein the first layer is 5 Å and the second layer is 300 Å, the ratio would be 1:60 resulting in a ratio of thickness witin a range of 1:1 to 1:60. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05. As to claim 5, Han modified by Han ‘628 teaches the light-emitting device of claim 1, Han further teaches wherein a thickness of the first layer is in a range of about 4 Å to about 20 Å (⁋ [0037], “5 Å to about 300 Å”). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05. As to claim 6, Han modified by Han ‘628 teaches the light-emitting device of claim 1, Han further teaches wherein a thickness of the second layer is in a range of about 10 Å to about 500 Å (⁋ [0037], “5 Å to about 300 Å”). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05. As to claim 7, Han modified by Han ‘628 teaches the light-emitting device of claim 1, Han further teaches a third layer ⁋ [0039]) but fails to teach all the limitations of wherein the interlayer further comprises a third layer arranged between the emission layer and the second layer, and the third layer comprises a second metal-free material. Examiner notes, however, that a duplication of the second layer satisfies the claim language as it pertains to the third layer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the second layer, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. As to claim 8, Han modified by Han ‘628 teaches the light-emitting device of claim 7, Han further teaches wherein the first electrode is an anode (⁋ [0049]), the second electrode is a cathode (⁋ [0235]), the interlayer further comprises: a hole transport region (⁋ [0053]) arranged between the first electrode and the emission layer; and an electron transport region (157, ⁋ [0053]) arranged between the emission layer and the second electrode, the hole transport region comprises at least one of a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission auxiliary layer, and an electron blocking layer (⁋ [0055]), the electron transport region comprises at least one of a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer (⁋ [0187]), and the electron transport region comprises the first layer, the second layer, and the third layer (⁋ [0039], “the electron injection layer may include a first layer, a second layer, and a third layer”). As to claim 9, Han modified by Han ‘628 teaches the light-emitting device of claim 8, Han further teaches wherein the electron transport region comprises an electron injection layer, and the electron injection layer comprises the first layer and the second layer (⁋ [0039], “the electron injection layer may include a first layer, a second layer, and a third layer”). As to claim 11, Han modified by Han ‘628 teaches the light-emitting device of claim 1, Han ‘628 further teaches wherein a maximum emission wavelength of light emitted from the fourth light-emitting unit (green) and a maximum emission wavelength of light emitted from another one of the four light-emitting units (blue) are different from each other (⁋ [0124]). As to claim 12, Han modified by Han ‘628 teaches the light-emitting device of claim 1, Han further teaches wherein the first metal-containing material and the second metal-containing material each independently include ytterbium (Yb), lithium (Li), copper (Cu), silver (Ag), gold (Au), aluminum (Al), magnesium (Mg), or a combination thereof (see claim 1). As to claim 13, Han modified by Han ‘628 teaches the light-emitting device of claim 1, Han further teaches wherein the metal-free material comprises a phenanthroline-based compound (see claim 1), a triazine-based compound, or a combination thereof. As to claim 14, Han modified by Han ‘628 teaches the light-emitting device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein an amount of the metal-free material in the second layer is in a range of about 95.0 parts by weight to about 99.9 parts by weight, based on a total of 100 parts by weight of the metal-free material and the second metal-containing material. On the other hand, Examiner notes the Applicant has not specified a criticality to the dimensions. If the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device: In re Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777. As to claim 15, Han modified by Han ‘628 teaches the light-emitting device of claim 1, Han further teaches wherein the first layer directly contacts the second layer (⁋ [0036], “the first layer may be in direct contact with the second layer”). Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Han ‘628, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Shin et al. (US 2022/0173343 A1), hereafter “Shin”. As to claim 16, Han modified by Han ‘628 fails to teach an electronic apparatus comprising the light-emitting device of claim 1. Shin teaches a similar light emitting device (Fig. 1, 10, ⁋ [0070]) within an electronic apparatus (⁋ [0221]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the teaching of an electronic apparatus as taught by Shin with the device of Han for the purpose of applying the electronic apparatus to various displays (⁋ [0230]). As to claim 17, Han modified by Han ‘628 and Shin teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 16, Shin teaches further comprising: a thin-film transistor, wherein the thin-film transistor comprises a source electrode and a drain electrode, and the first electrode of the light-emitting device is electrically connected to at least one of the source electrode and the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor (⁋ [0227]). As to claim 18, Han modified by Han ‘628 and Shin teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 17, Shin teaches further comprising: at least one of a color filter, a color conversion layer, a touch screen layer, and a polarizing layer (⁋⁋ [0222]-[0229]). As to claim 19, Han modified by Han ‘628 fails to teach an electronic device comprising the light-emitting device of claim 1. Shin teaches a similar light emitting device (Fig. 1, 10, ⁋ [0070]) within an electronic apparatus (⁋ [0221]), wherein the electronic apparatus is used in various display devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the teaching of the electronic device as taught by Shin with the device of Han to improve the performance of the display devices. As to claim 20, Han modified by Han ‘628 and Shin teaches the electronic device of claim 19, Shin further teaches wherein the electronic device is a flat panel display, a curved display, a computer monitor, a medical monitor, a television, a billboard, 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 personal computer, a phablet, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a wearable device, a laptop computer, a digital camera, a camcorder, a viewfinder, a micro display, a three-dimensional (3D) display, a virtual reality display, an augmented reality display, a vehicle, a video wall with multiple displays tiled together, a theater screen, a stadium screen, a phototherapy device, or a signboard (⁋ [0230] “digital cameras”). Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CARNELL HUNTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1796. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:30pm. 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 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. /CARNELL HUNTER III/Examiner, Art Unit 2893 /SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893