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
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.
Claims 1, 3-6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. [US PPGUB 20160260930] in view of Xiang et al. [US PGPUB 20160204381] and Oh et al. [Electrical and optical properties of Si-doped indium tin oxides as transparent electrode and anti-reflection coating for solar cells].
Regarding claim 1, Seo teaches a light-emitting device comprising:
a first electrode (104, Para 109) capable of reflecting light (Para 109);
a second electrode (106) over the first electrode (Fig. 1), the second electrode capable of transmitting light (Para 146);
a first layer (131, Para 147) over and in contact with the second electrode (Fig. 1);
a light-emitting layer (108, Para 148) over the first layer (Fig. 1); and
a third electrode (120, Para 109) over the light-emitting layer (Fig. 1), the third electrode capable of reflecting and transmitting light (Para 109),
wherein the first layer (PCPPn:MoO.sub.3 layer, Para 147) comprises:
a first organic compound (PCPPn); and
any one of a transition metal oxide (MoO.sub.3) and a second organic compound,
wherein the second organic compound is a compound comprising one of a halogen group and a cyano group (the limitation is not required because the first layer comprises any one of a transition metal oxide and a second organic compound),
wherein the second electrode is a layer of an inorganic material (wherein the electrode is indium tin oxide containing silicon oxide, Para 146), and
Seo does not specifically disclose that a refractive index of the first layer is less than or equal to 1.80, and
wherein the second electrode has a higher refractive index than the first layer.
Referring to the invention of Xiang, Xiang teaches an exemplary structure of an OLED comprising 120 nm transparent anode (n=1.9+0.05i), 10 nm HIL (n=1.8), 45 nm HTL (n=1.8), 27 nm EML (n=1.8), 5 nm HBL (n=1.8), 45 nm ETL(n=1.8) and 100 nm reflective cathode (Para 51).
Also, Oh teaches that indium tin oxide containing silicon oxide has a refractive index of 1.97 (abstract), a similar value as the transparent electrode taught by Xiang.
Thus, at least in view of such teaching by Xiang and Oh, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the invention of Seo have the refractive index of the first layer being less than or equal to 1.80, and wherein the second electrode has a higher refractive index than the first layer at least based on the rationale of using known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way using (MPEP 2143.I.C) or relying on teachings, suggestions, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention (MPEP 2143.I.G).
Regarding claim 3, Seo teaches a light-emitting device wherein the first electrode is an anode and the third electrode is a cathode (Para 236/240).
Regarding claim 4, the modified invention of Seo teaches the limitation of claim 1 upon which it depends.
The modified invention does not specifically disclose wherein the first layer has a refractive index less than or equal to 1.70.
However, in view of Xiang, it is known that the first layer has a refractive index of 1.80 (Para 51).
In view of such teaching by Xiang, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the refractive index at least equal to 1.70 because it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Regarding claim 5, Seo teaches a light-emitting device wherein the second electrode is conductive (Para 238).
Regarding claim 6, Seo teaches a light-emitting device wherein the first layer is a hole-injection layer (Para 190).
Regarding claim 9, Seo teaches an electronic device comprising:
the light-emitting device according to claim 1; and
one of a sensor, an operation button, a speaker and a microphone (Para 4, Fig. 43/44).
Regarding claim 10, Seo teaches a light-emitting apparatus comprising:
the light-emitting device according to claim 1; and
one of a transistor and a substrate (102, Para 232-235).
Regarding claim 11, Seo teaches a lighting device comprising: the light-emitting apparatus according to claim 10; and
a housing (Para 4, Fig. 43/44).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-22 are allowed.
Claims 2 and 7-8 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: .
Claims 12-22 are allowed because all prior arts of record and related prior arts not of record either singularly or in combination fail to anticipate or render obvious a light-emitting device comprising:
wherein the first layer comprises:
a first organic compound having a refractive index less than or equal to 1.80; and
a second organic compound comprising one of a cyano group and a fluoro group (as claimed in claim 12), in combination with the rest of claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAIL A MUSE whose telephone number is (571)272-1470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, William Partridge can be reached at (571)270-1402. 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.
/ISMAIL A MUSE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights