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 .
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.
Claims 10-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakakibara (US Pub. No. 2021/0028385, provided by Applicant in the 4/9/2024 IDS).
Regarding claim 10, in FIGs. 1-2, Sakakibara discloses a light-emitting structure, comprising: a first light-emitting element comprising a first light-emitting layer (one of 8/QR/QG/QB) and a first electron transport layer (one of 6R/6G/6B); a second light-emitting element, comprising a second light-emitting layer (another one of 8/QR/QG/QB) and a second electron transport layer (another one of 6R/6G/6B); and a third light-emitting element, comprising a third light-emitting layer (remaining one of 8/QR/QG/QB) and a third electron transport layer (remaining one of 6R/6G/6B), wherein at least one selected from a group consisting of the first electron transport layer, the second electron transport layer and the third electron transport layer comprises ZnMgO nanoparticles, and has a molar percentage of Mg in a range of 0% < 50% (6G, MgxZn1-xO where 0 < x < 0.5, paragraph [0034]; 6B, MgyZn1-yO where 0 < y < 0.5, paragraph [0034]).
Sakakibara appears not to explicitly disclose that at least one selected from a group consisting of the first electron transport layer, second electron transport layer and the third electron transport layer comprises ZnMgO nanoparticles, and has a molar percentage of Mg in a range of 5%-10%.
According to well established patent law precedents (see, for example, M.P.E.P. § 2144.05, I), “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to form at least one of the electron transport layers that comprise ZnMgO such that a molar percentage of Mg in the is in a range of 5%-10%.
Regarding claim 11, in FIGs. 1-2, Sakakibara discloses a molar percentage of Mg in the first electron transport layer (6G or 6B) is in a range of 0% < 50% (6G, MgxZn1-xO where 0 < x < 0.5, paragraph [0034]; 6B, MgyZn1-yO where 0 < y < 0.5, paragraph [0034]).
Sakakibara appears not to explicitly disclose that a molar percentage of Mg in the first electron transport layer is in a range from 10% to 20%.
According to well established patent law precedents (see, for example, M.P.E.P. § 2144.05, I), “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to form at least one of the electron transport layers (6G or 6B) that comprise ZnMgO such that a molar percentage of Mg in the is in a range of 10%-20%.
Regarding claim 12, in FIGs. 1-2, Sakakibara discloses that a molar percentage of Mg in the second electron transport layer (e.g. when 6R is selected as the second electron transport layer) is less than 5% (ZnO has a Mg molar percentage of 0).
Regarding claim 13, in FIGs. 1-2, Sakakibara discloses that the first light-emitting element further comprises a first cathode (one of 4R/4G, paragraph [0023]), the first cathode is in contact with the first electron transport layer (one of 6R/6G), an energy level of conduction band minimum (CBM) of the first electron transport layer is larger than a Fermi level of the first cathode.
Regarding claim 15, in FIGs. 1-2, Sakakibara discloses that a difference between the energy level of CBM of the first electron transport layer (6R, -4.0) and the Fermi level of the first cathode (-4.3) is in a range from 0.3 to 0.6eV.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-9, and 20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1, 3-9, and 20, the prior art failed to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed light-emitting structure particularly characterized by the energy level of CBM of the first light emitting layer is smaller than that of the first electron transport layer.
Claims 14 and 16-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art failed to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed light-emitting structure particularly characterized by the energy level of CBM of the first light emitting layer being smaller than that of the first electron transport layer
Regarding claims 16-19, the prior art failed to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed light-emitting structure particularly characterized by the energy level of CBM of the first light-emitting layer being smaller than that of the second light-emitting layer, and the energy level of CBM of the first electron transport layer is larger than that of the second electron transport layer.
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 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 TUCKER J WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-3234. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/TUCKER J WRIGHT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891