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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The specification, as originally filed, contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to make and/or use the invention since the specification does not disclose the particular alkali metal containing material that is not in ionic form.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In independent claim 1, the phrase “wherein the alkali metal does not include an ionic form” renders the claims unclear in scope and meaning since it is not clear what particular compound would constitute an alkali metal that is not in ionic form.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al., US 2021/0359214 in view of Wallikewitz et al., US Patent 10,700,300.
Kang et al. shows the invention substantially as claimed including a light emitting device comprising:
A first electrode 110;
A second electrode 190 facing the first electrode 110;
An interlayer arranged between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the interlayer comprises:
M emission layers 150 including an electron transport layer;
m-1 charge generation layers 154 arranged between two adjacent ones of the m emission layers; and m is an integer of 2 or more (see fig. 1 and its description).
Kang et al. does not expressly disclose a layer comprising an alkali metal and Yb, where the alkali metal does not include an ionic form. Wallikewitz et al. discloses utilizing Yb and an alkali metal such as lithium in an electron transport layer (see abstract), where the alkali metal can contain which does not include an ionic form (as evidenced by the presence of an elemental metal halide---see abstract, lines 9-11). In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the primary reference of Kang et al. so as to comprise the electron transport layer as disclosed by Wallikewitz et al. because this is shown to be suitable for the intended purpose of being an effective electron transport material.
Regarding dependent claims 2 and 16, Wallikewitz et al. discloses the alkali metal being lithium or magnesium, for example.
Concerning dependent claim 3, Kang et al. discloses wherein the first electrode 110 is an anode; the second electrode 190 is a cathode (see paragraph 0119); and an interlayer arranged between the first electrode and m emission layers and containing one of the claimed layers (see paragraph 0117).
With respect to dependent claim 4, note that Kang et al. also disclose an electron transport region arranged between the second electrode and the m emission layers and comprising one of the claimed layers (see paragraph 0047),
Concerning claim 5 and regarding the volume ratio of the alkali metal to Yb, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding dependent claim 6, note that Wallkewitz et al. discloses the thickness of the electron transport layers to be from 0.5 to 90nm, for example (see col. 13-lines 56-67) which overlaps with the claimed range thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to determine through routine experimentation the optimum thickness of the layer based upon a variety of factors including the desired scaling factor of the device and such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant invention absent a showing of unexpected results.
With respect to dependent claims 7-9, Kang et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the layer comprising an alkali metal and Yb is in direct contact with the second electrode. Wallkewitz et al. discloses the formation of a layer 162 containing Yb and an alkali metal contacting a second electrode 190 (note that layer 180 is optional---see col. 41-lines 1-12 and figs.4-7, for example). In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the primary reference of Kang et al. so as to form the layer containing Yb and an alkali metal so as to contact the second electrode as disclosed by Wallkewitz et al. because this is shown to be a suitable configuration for a LED.
As to dependent claim 10, Kang et al. discloses that m can be an integer of three or more which overlaps with the claimed range (see paragraph 0048) establishing a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05) and also comprises a blue and green emission layer (see paragraph 0213).
With respect to dependent claims 11-12, note that Kang et al. discloses a fluorescent or phosphorescent dopant (see paragraph 0215).
As to dependent claim 13, note that Kang discloses the use of a n type and p type generation layer (see abstract).
With respect to dependent claim 14, note that the green and blue emission can be formed in a variety of configurations (see paragraph 0213). Furthermore, official notice is taken that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to stack the different emission layers in a variety of configurations and such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent a showing of unexpected results.
Concerning dependent claim 15, note that the second electrode can comprise Ag and an alkali earth metal such as Mg (see paragraph 0380).
As to dependent claims 17-18, note the LED of Kang et al. can be a light source (see paragraph 0003).
With respect to dependent claim 19, note that Kang et al. further includes 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 (see paragraph 0037).
Concerning dependent claim 20, note that Kang et al. discloses a color filter, wherein the color filter comprises quantum dots (see paragraph 0397).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/02/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the references of record fail to disclose an alkali metal that does not include an ionic form. However, as discussed above, Wallikewitz et al. discloses such a material as evidenced by the presence of an elemental metal halide---see abstract, lines 9-11. Moreover, the specification fails to enable such a material and therefore a rejection under 35 USC 112(a) is also appropriate.
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 RICHARD A BOOTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1668. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:30 to 5:00.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. 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.
/RICHARD A BOOTH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
August 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights