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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 9/8/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there are similarities between the species, a search of both would be coextensive, and therefore there is no serious burden.
This is not found persuasive because the case is a national stage application and therefore was restricted under unity of invention. Examination burden is not a determining factor for unity of invention, and therefore applicant’s arguments regarding a lack of burden are moot. In the instant case, the species listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical feature because Species A requires charge generation units of different colors of light-emitting devices are arranged at intervals whereas Species B requires charge generation units of different colors of light-emitting devices are connected into a whole.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim(s) 1-19 and 23 is/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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim is unclear because it lacks punctuation which properly indicates what constitutes the preamble of the claim.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “adjacent light-emitting units” is unclear as to how it is related to the previously recited “at least two light-emitting units.”
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the light-emitting units” is unclear as to how it is related to the previously recited “at least two light-emitting units” and “adjacent light-emitting units.”
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “wherein the first guest material comprises any one of a fullerene derivative or a phthalocyanine-based compound,” is unclear as to how the “any one of a fullerene derivative or a phthalocyanine-based compound,” is related to the “organic electronic material” of claim 6.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “wherein the second guest material comprises at least one of Yb, Li, Cs, lithium carbonate, or cesium carbonate,” is unclear as to how “at least one of Yb, Li, Cs, lithium carbonate, or cesium carbonate” is related to the “metal or metal salt,” of claim 13.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “plurality of light-emitting devices” is unclear as to how it is related to the “light-emitting device” of claims 1 and 18.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “charge generation units” is unclear as to how it is related to the “charge generation unit” of claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “light-emitting devices” is unclear as to how it is related to the previously recited “plurality of light-emitting devices,” of claim 19 and the “light-emitting device” of claims 1 and 18.
Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 9, 12-14, 17, 18, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bi et al. (US 20170213992; herein “Bi”).
Regarding claim 1, Bi discloses in Fig. 2/6(a) and related text a light-emitting device, comprising a first electrode (21/61, see [0032]/[0060]) and a second electrode (23/63, see [0032]/[0060]) opposite to each other, and at least two light-emitting units (e.g. stack including 2203/6203 and stack of 2206/6206, see [0032]/[0061]) in a stack between the first electrode and the second electrode; wherein the light-emitting device further comprises a charge generation unit (2204 and 2205/6204 and 6205, see [0032]/[0061]) between adjacent light-emitting units;
the charge generation unit comprises a first charge generation unit (2204/6204) and a second charge generation unit (2205/6205) sequentially arranged in a direction from the second electrode to the first electrode; and
the first charge generation unit is made of a material comprising a first host material and a first guest material doped in the first host material (see [0042]/[0061] at least), the first charge generation unit is configured to generate a first charge, and the first guest material is configured to absorb light emitted from the light-emitting units to cause the first charge generation unit to generate the first charge.
Note that the limitation “the first charge generation unit is configured to generate a first charge, and the first guest material is configured to absorb light emitted from the light-emitting units to cause the first charge generation unit to generate the first charge” is taught by the materials disclosed by Bi being the same as the exemplary materials disclosed by applicant which perform in the same manner. Additionally, it is noted that it is the Examiner' s position that the limitation is a functional limitation of the apparatus claimed. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114.I and 2112.01. Further, because the device of Bi has all of the structural limitations of the claimed invention the device is capable of performing in the manner claimed by the applicant. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.II and 2112.01.
Regarding claim 5, Bi further discloses wherein the first host material comprises any one of a pyridine-based substance, a pyrimidine-based substance, or a triazine ring-based substance (e.g. 46DCzPPm, i.e. 4,6-Bis(3-(9H-carbazol-9-yl)phenyl)pyrimidine).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Bi further discloses wherein the first guest material comprises an organic electronic material; wherein the first guest material comprises any one of a fullerene derivative or a phthalocyanine-based compound (e.g. fullerene, see [0061]).
Regarding claim 9, Bi further discloses wherein the second charge generation unit comprises a second host material and a second guest material doped in the second host material (see [0042]).
Regarding claim 12, Bi further discloses wherein the second host material comprises any one of a triphenylamine-based material, a fluorene-based material, an arylamine-based material, or a carbazole-based material (e.g. 46DCzPPm, i.e. 4,6-Bis(3-(9H-carbazol-9-yl)phenyl)pyrimidine).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Bi further discloses wherein the second guest material comprises a metal or a metal salt having a work function in a range of 1.8eV to 3.0eV; wherein the second guest material comprises at least one of Yb, Li, Cs, lithium carbonate, or cesium carbonate (e.g. Li, see [0042], which is disclosed by applicant as having the work function claimed).
Regarding claim 17, Bi further discloses wherein each light-emitting unit comprises an emission layer (2202/6203 and 2206/6206) and a functional sub-layer (e.g. 2201/6201 and 2207/6207); and the functional sub-layer comprises at least one of a hole injection layer, an electron injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron transport layer, a hole blocking layer or an electron blocking layer (see [0032]/[0061]).
Regarding claim 18, Bi further discloses a display substrate (see [0066]-[0067]), comprising the light-emitting device according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 23, Bi further discloses a display apparatus (see [0066]-[0067]), comprising the display substrate according to claim 1.
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.
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.
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) 2, 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bi as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Riegel et al. (DE 102014112130, using machine translation provided herewith; herein “Riegel”).
Regarding claims 2, 3 and 10, Bi does not explicitly disclose
wherein the charge generation unit satisfies a transmittance of visible light higher than 60% in a wavelength range of 380nm to 480nm; the charge generation unit satisfies a transmittance of visible light higher than 75% in a wavelength range of 480nm to 580nm; and the charge generation unit satisfies a transmittance of visible light higher than 80% in a wavelength range of 580nm to 680nm;
wherein the first charge generation unit satisfies a transmittance of visible light higher than 80% in a wavelength range of 380nm to 480nm; the first charge generation unit satisfies a transmittance of visible light higher than 85% in a wavelength range of 480nm to 580nm; and the first charge generation unit satisfies a transmittance of visible light higher than 85% in a wavelength range of 580nm to 680nm;
wherein the second charge generation unit satisfies a transmittance of visible light higher than 80% in a wavelength range of 380nm to 480nm; the second charge generation unit satisfies a transmittance of visible light higher than 85% in a wavelength range of 480nm to 580nm; and the second charge generation unit satisfies a transmittance of visible light higher than 85% in a wavelength range of 580nm to 680nm.
In the same field of endeavor, Riegel teaches in Fig. 1 and related text a light-emitting device
wherein the charge generation unit (40, see pg. 8 para. 3) satisfies a transmittance of visible light higher than 60% in a wavelength range of 380nm to 480nm; the charge generation unit satisfies a transmittance of visible light higher than 75% in a wavelength range of 480nm to 580nm; and the charge generation unit satisfies a transmittance of visible light higher than 80% in a wavelength range of 580nm to 680nm (see pg. 8 para. 3);
wherein the first charge generation unit (42) satisfies a transmittance of visible light higher than 80% in a wavelength range of 380nm to 480nm; the first charge generation unit satisfies a transmittance of visible light higher than 85% in a wavelength range of 480nm to 580nm; and the first charge generation unit satisfies a transmittance of visible light higher than 85% in a wavelength range of 580nm to 680nm (see pg. 8 para. 3);
wherein the second charge generation unit (41) satisfies a transmittance of visible light higher than 80% in a wavelength range of 380nm to 480nm; the second charge generation unit satisfies a transmittance of visible light higher than 85% in a wavelength range of 480nm to 580nm; and the second charge generation unit satisfies a transmittance of visible light higher than 85% in a wavelength range of 580nm to 680nm (see pg. 8 para. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Bi by having the transmittance as claimed, as shown by Riegel, in order to ensure high light extraction from the device.
Note that the range disclosed by Riegel overlaps the claimed range. 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)). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the transmittance to be a result effective variable affecting the light output, extraction, and efficiency of the device. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Bi to have the transmittances within the claimed range in order to achieve desired optical properties, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Claim(s) 4, 11, 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bi as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Shin et al. (US 20230189643; herein “Shin”).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 16, Bi does not explicitly disclose
wherein the first charge generation unit has a thickness between 4nm and 10nm;
wherein the second charge generation unit has a thickness between 5nm and 15nm;
wherein the second charge generation unit has a larger thickness than the first charge generation unit.
In the same field of endeavor, Shin teaches in Fig. 5 and related text a light-emitting device
wherein the first charge generation unit (374) has a thickness between 4nm and 10nm (see [0176]);
wherein the second charge generation unit (372) has a thickness between 5nm and 15nm (see [0176]);
wherein the second charge generation unit has a larger thickness than the first charge generation unit (see [0176]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Bi by having the thicknesses as claimed, as shown by Shin, in order to achieve a desired efficiency and overall device size.
Note that the range disclosed by Shin overlaps the claimed range. 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)). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the thicknesses to be a result effective variable affecting the light emitting and driving efficiency and overall device size. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Bi to have the thicknesses within the claimed range in order to achieve desired electrical, physical and optical properties, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Regarding claim 19, Bi does not explicitly disclose the display substrate comprises a plurality of pixel units each comprising a plurality of light-emitting devices which emit light of different colors, respectively; and charge generation units of different colors of light-emitting devices are arranged at intervals, or are connected into a whole.
In the same field of endeavor, Shin teaches in Figs. 8-9 a display substrate comprising a plurality of pixel units each comprising a plurality of light-emitting devices (D, see [0025]) which emit light of different colors (see [0048]), respectively; and charge generation units (372/374, see [0174]) of different colors of light-emitting devices are arranged at intervals, or are connected into a whole (see Fig. 8-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Bi by having the display substrate comprises a plurality of pixel units each comprising a plurality of light-emitting devices which emit light of different colors, respectively; and charge generation units of different colors of light-emitting devices are arranged at intervals, or are connected into a whole, as shown by Shin, in order to achieve a display device capable of displaying different colors in different subpixels and/or pixels employing a variety of manufacturing methods for deposition of the layers.
Claim(s) 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bi.
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Bi further discloses
wherein a doping concentration of the first guest material in the first host material is between 0.5% and 1.5% (see [0042]/[0061]);
wherein a doping concentration of the second guest material in the second host material is between 0.4% and 2.0% (see [0042]/[0061]).
Note that the range disclosed by Bi overlaps the claimed range. 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)). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the doping concentration to be a result effective variable affecting the light emitting and driving efficiency. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Bi to have the thicknesses within the claimed range in order to achieve desired electrical and optical properties, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lauren R Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-7199. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/LAUREN R BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights