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 .
Specification
The specification amendments to [0044], [0062] and [0065-0066] were received on 10.2.2025. These amendments are acceptable.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-12 and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7.23.2024.
Claims 1, 13 and 15 are examined and claims 8-12 and 14 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103
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.
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 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (of record, US 20160190521 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses (Fig. 6) an organic (title) electroluminescent device, comprising:
an anode (ANO);
a cathode (CAT) disposed opposite to the anode; and
a light emitting functional layer (at least EML1) disposed between the anode and the cathode;
wherein the light emitting functional layer comprises a light emitting layer (EML1, [0050]) and a rectifying PN junction layer (CGL, [0046-0047]) that has a rectifying property (MPEP 2112 and/or 2114; the prior art discloses “the charge generation layer CGL may be a pn junction charge generation layer CGL” wherein the claim term “rectifying” does not structurally differentiate the claim over the prior art and the prior art appears at least capable of including said rectifying property) and is disposed on (indirectly at least) a (bottom) side of the light emitting layer (EML1) close to the anode (ANO; both ANO and CGL are below EML1), and the rectifying PN junction layer is configured to (MPEP 2112 and/or 2114) form an open circuit when a positive charge is applied to the anode and a negative charge is applied to the cathode, carriers transport close to the rectifying PN junction layer is achieved by tunneling effect occurred at the rectifying PN junction layer, to suppress injection of holes into the light emitting layer, so that the cathode and the anode evenly inject carriers into the light emitting layer (the claimed functional limitation and/or inherent properties do not structurally differentiate the claim over the prior art and the prior art appears at least capable of including said properties and/or meeting said functional limitations).
Specifically, “the rectifying PN junction layer is configured to form an open circuit when a positive charge is applied to the anode and a negative charge is applied to the cathode, carriers transport close to the rectifying PN junction layer is achieved by tunneling effect occurred at the rectifying PN junction layer, to suppress injection of holes into the light emitting layer, so that the cathode and the anode evenly inject carriers into the light emitting layer” is entirely drawn to functional limitation and/or inherent properties which do not structurally differentiate the claim over the prior art and the prior art appears at least capable of including said properties and/or meeting said functional limitations since all that is structurally required by the claim to meet this limitation is a rectifying PN junction layer disposed on side of the light emitting layer close to the anode. See MPEP 2112 and/or 2114.
Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses the rectifying PN junction layer comprises organic molecule materials ([0048-0049]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (of record, US 20160190521 A1) in view of Hamada et al. (of record, US 20170186993 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Lee fails to disclose the organic electroluminescent device further comprises a coupling light emitting layer disposed on a side of the cathode away from the anode.
Hamada discloses, in Fig 4, a coupling light emitting layer (5, [0045]) disposed on a side of the cathode (4) away from the anode (2), “to increase the light-emitting efficiency of the OLED display panel”, ([0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the device of Lee with the placement of Hamada’s coupling light emitting layer to increase the light-emitting efficiency of the OLED display panel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10.2.2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant alleges claims 8-12 and 14 should be rejoined. This is not persuasive as the claims do not read on elected Fig. 2. For example:
Claims 8-9 are supported by Figs. 8-9 per Applicant’s admission at pg. 11, both of which are non-elected. Claim 14 now depends from claim 8.
Claims 10-11 are supported by Fig. 10 per Applicant’s admission at pg. 12, said figure is non-elected.
Claims 12 is supported by Fig. 5 per Applicant’s admission at pg. 12, said figure is non-elected.
The applicant alleges the present invention and Lee et al. (of record, US 20160190521 A1) are drawn to different technical problems as the present invention is drawn to "carrier injection imbalance" while Lee is drawn to “how to improve overall device luminance and current efficiency”.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
The applicant alleges “The charge generation layer (CGL) in Lee is designed for efficient charge generation and low-resistance ohmic injection (D1 [0047]: "the pn junction charge generation layer CGL generates charges or separates charges into holes and electrons and injects the holes and electrons ..."). Its technical approach involves careful material selection so that the energy levels of the N-type and P-type layers in the CGL are perfectly aligned with adjacent electron transport layers (ETL) and hole transport layers (HTL), aiming for unobstructed, efficient charge injection”, “Therefore, the "tunneling effect" of the present invention would be a non-ideal, high-energy, and generally undesirable transport mode for the CGL of Lee. If carriers were mainly transported via tunneling, it would indicate improper energy-level design, leading to unnecessary voltage increase and reduced efficiency. This is directly contrary to Lee's core objective of lowering the driving voltage (D1 [0047]: "a driving voltage can also be lowered")”, and “In short, Lee employs an "additive" approach to facilitate charge flow”.
The limitation “the rectifying PN junction layer is configured to form an open circuit when a positive charge is applied to the anode and a negative charge is applied to the cathode, carriers transport close to the rectifying PN junction layer is achieved by tunneling effect occurred at the rectifying PN junction layer, to suppress injection of holes into the light emitting layer, so that the cathode and the anode evenly inject carriers into the light emitting layer” is entirely drawn to functional limitation and/or inherent properties which do not structurally differentiate the claim over the prior art and the prior art appears at least capable of including said properties and/or meeting said functional limitations since all that is structurally required by the claim to meet this limitation is a rectifying PN junction layer disposed on side of the light emitting layer close to the anode. In this case, Lee discloses a rectifying PN junction layer (CGL, [0046-0047]) that has a rectifying property (MPEP 2112 and/or 2114; the prior art discloses “the charge generation layer CGL may be a pn junction charge generation layer CGL” wherein the claim term “rectifying” does not structurally differentiate the claim over the prior art and the prior art appears at least capable of including said rectifying property) and is disposed on (indirectly at least) a (bottom) side of the light emitting layer (EML1) close to the anode (ANO; both ANO and CGL are below EML1). See MPEP 2112 and/or 2114.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that the “pn junction” of Lee would not include the functional limitation and/or inherent properties claimed when the claim also recites a PN junction. Therefore, given the lack of structural differences between the prior art and the claimed invention, it is the examiner’s position that Lee meets the claim per MPEP 2112 and/or 2114; the examiner encourages the applicant to focus on structural differences moving forward.
The applicant alleges “Therefore, in summary, Lee's CGL is a "charge generator" and "efficient injector" whose working mechanism is based on energy-level alignment and is designed to avoid tunneling, whereas the rectifying PN junction layer of the present invention is a "charge regulator" and "process protector" whose working mechanism is based on quantum tunneling and is intended to utilize tunneling” and “Accordingly, the amended claim 1 clearly distinguishes the rectifying PN junction layer from Lee's CGL layer in terms of physical structure”.
This is not found persuasive because there is no evidence that the “pn junction” of Lee would not include the functional limitation and/or inherent properties claimed when the claim also recites a PN junction. Therefore, given the lack of structural differences between the prior art and the claimed invention, it is the examiner’s position that Lee meets the claim per MPEP 2112 and/or 2114; the examiner encourages the applicant to focus on structural differences moving forward.
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 ANDRES MUNOZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3346. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM Central Time.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571)270-3829. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRES MUNOZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3346. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM Central Time.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571)270-3829. 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.
/Andres Munoz/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818