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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 02/09/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 13-15 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-12 and 16-20 are pending.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 11-13 of the reply filed 02/09/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-6, 8-12, and 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US 2007/0285001 A1, hereafter Tsai) in view of Wang et al. (CN 105206757 A, machine translated English version is referred to, hereafter Wang), the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai in view of Wang as applied to claims 1-6, 8-12, and 16-19 above, further in view of Youn et al. (US 2019/0131580 A1, hereafter Youn), and the rejections of claims 1-12 and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rausch et al. (US 2017/0229669 A1, hereafter Rausch) in view of Youn, Liao et al. (US 2006/0040132 A1, hereafter Liao), and Wang set forth in the Office Action of 12/10/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that Applicant has amended claim 1 to exclude the hole transport compounds of formula 202 such that the combination of cited references should fail to teach all the features of the amended claims.
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
The cited rejections refer to NPB and TPD as the hole transport compound of the p-type charge generating layer (see sections 60 and 102 of the last Office Action).
As Applicant pointed out the amended claims deleted Formula 202; thus, the hole transport compounds NPB and TPD are not a compound represented by Formula 202. However, those compounds still read on the limitation of Formula 201, because R201 can be a substituted C6-C60 aryl group and there is no restriction to prevent the substituent of the substituted C6-C60 aryl group being an amine group.
PNG
media_image1.png
393
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown in the figure above, NPB and TPD reads on all the limitations of the hole transport material of Formula 201. The rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-12 and 16-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant recites “R201 to R203 and Q201 are each …” However, it appears there is no Q201 in the structural formulas 201 and 301-2. It is unclear which structural formula requires Q201 to be the list of substituents, rendering this claim indefinite.
For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean “R201 to R203 are each …” (i.e. delete Q201).
Applicant recites “X301 is O, S, or N-[L304]xb4-R304], …” It appears that there is no limitation of L304 is provided anywhere in the claim. It is unclear which structures can be L304, rendering this claim indefinite.
For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that the limitation of L304 is same as L301 to L303.
Regarding claims 2-12 and 16-20, claims 2-12 and 16-20 are rejected due to the dependency from claim 1.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US 2007/0285001 A1, hereafter Tsai) in view of Wang et al. (CN 105206757 A, machine translated English version is referred to, hereafter Wang).
Regarding claims 1-6, 8-12, and 16-19, Tsai discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode (anode, 220), an emission unit (bottom 230), a connecting electrode (240), an emission unit (top 230), and a second electrode (cathode, 260) wherein each emission unit comprises a hole transport layer (233), an emission layer (231), and an electron transport layer (234) (Fig. 3, [0042]).
Tsai does not exemplify a specific organic light emitting device comprising boron as the connecting electrode material and NPB as the hole transport layer material; however, Tsai does teach that the connecting electrode can comprise a layer containing alkali or alkaline earth compound (242) and a semiconductor layer (244) ([0043]) and further teaches that the semiconductor layer can comprise a doping ion of boron (B) ([0045]). Tsai teaches NPB as the hole transport layer material ([0053]).
PNG
media_image2.png
341
539
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The NPB reads on Applicant’s Formula 201 of claim 1, wherein the phenyl naphthyl amino group enclosed by a dashed circle is the substituent of a substituted or unsubstituted C6-C60 aryl group (i.e. phenyl) at R201.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic light emitting device of Tsai by incorporating a doping ion, boron into the semiconductor layer of the connecting layer comprising a semiconductor layer, and NPB into the hole transport layer, as taught by Tsai.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Each substitution of the exemplified semiconductor layer doping materials and the exemplified hole transport layer materials would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of Tsai comprising first electrode (anode), a first emission unit, an alkali or alkaline earth compound layer, a semiconductor layer comprising boron, a second emission unit, and a second electrode (cathode) wherein each emission unit comprises a hole transport layer (NPB), an emission layer, and an electron transport layer.
The hole transport layer of the emission units of the Modified organic light emitting device of Tsai does not comprise a first inorganic material.
Wang discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an electron transport layer containing an electron transport material doped with an n-type dopant, and a hole transport layer containing a hole transport material doped with a p-dopant (page 2, the first par.).
Wang exemplifies ZnF2 as the n-dopant material and Bi2Te3 as the p-dopant material (page 4, the 4th par.) Wang exemplifies a fullerene derivative (PCBM) as the electron transport material (page 5, par. 1). The PCBM reads on Applicant’s Formula 601 of claim 10, wherein Ar601 is a substituted C5-C60 carbocyclic group (the spherical condensed rings); xe11 is 1; xe1 is 0; xe21 is 1; and R601 is a substituted or unsubstituted C6-C60 aryl group (phenyl).
Wang teaches that the organic light emitting device of Wang provides improved efficiency and reduced voltage (last paragraph of page 1 through the first paragraph of page 2).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified organic light emitting device of Tsai by incorporating the electron transport layer with PCBM doped with ZnF2; and the hole transport layer with a hole transport material NPB doped with Bi2Te3, as taught by Tsai and Wang.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide improved efficiency and reduced voltage, based on the teaching of Wang.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the electron transport layer materials and the doping material of the hole transport layer would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Tsai as modified by Wang comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer containing a hole transport material doped with Bi2Te3, a first emission layer, an electron transport layer containing PCBM doped with ZnF2, an alkali or alkaline earth compound layer, a semiconductor layer comprising boron, a hole transport layer containing NPB doped with Bi2Te3, a second emission layer, an electron transport layer containing an electron transport material doped with ZnF2, and a second electrode (cathode).
The semiconductor layer comprising boron is equated with an interlayer.
None of the instant claims requires the n-type charge generation layer to be made of homogenous mixture of constituent materials; thus, the combined layers of the electron transport layer and the alkali or alkaline earth compound layer (the first underlined structure in the device above) are equated with an n-type charge generating layer.
The hole transport layer (the second underlined structure in the device above) containing a hole transport material NPB doped with Bi2Te3 necessarily has a capability to generate holes to transfer to the second emission layer; thus, the hole transport layer is equated with a p-type charge generating layer.
The Organic light emitting device of Tsai as modified by Wang is equated with a device comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, a first emission layer, an n-type charge generating layer (a sublayer 1 - PCBM doped with a second inorganic material ZnF2; a sublayer 2 - an alkali or alkaline earth compound), an interlayer (a first inorganic material, boron), a p-type charge generating layer (NPB doped with a first inorganic material, Bi2Te3), a second emission layer, an electron transport layer, and a second electrode (cathode), meeting all the limitations of claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10-11, and 16-19.
With respect to claims 5 and 9, the first inorganic material Bi2Te3 reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach the material property of Bi2Te3 including 1) an absolute value of a work function of the first inorganic material being about 3.0 eV or more; and 2) a thermal evaporation temperature of the first inorganic material being about 1000 °C or less.
It is reasonable to presume that the material properties described in 1) and 2) are inherently to the first inorganic material Bi2Te3 of the Organic light emitting device of Tsai as modified by Wang.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification states that in one or more embodiments, an absolute value of a work function of the first inorganic material may be about 3.0 eV or more ([0053]). The instant specification states that the thermal evaporation temperature of the first inorganic material may be from 250 °C to about 550 °C ([0061]). Bi2Te3 is one of specific examples of the first inorganic materials in the instant disclosure ([0059]).
Therefore, the first inorganic material Bi2Te3, wherein 1) an absolute value of a work function of the first inorganic material is about 3.0 eV or more; and 2) a thermal evaporation temperature of the first inorganic material is about 1000 °C or less, meeting all the limitations of claims 5 and 9.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the Organic light emitting device of Tsai as modified by Wang is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
With respect to claim 12, Tsai in view of Wang discloses the claimed invention except for that the doping amount of the first inorganic material Bi2Te3 is in a range of about 0.01 parts by weight to about 49.9 parts by weight. It should be noted that the doping amount of the BiTe3 in the p-type charge generating layer is a result effective variable. Wang teaches that the doping amount of the Bi2Te3 would result in improving the conductive efficiency, the scattering effect, and the light output rate of the device (page 5, par. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to create the p-type charge generating layer doped by the Bi2Te3 with the doing amount in a range of about 0.01 parts by weight to about 49.9 parts by weight since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the conductivity, the scattering effect, and the light output rate, meeting all the limitations of claim 12.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US 2007/0285001 A1) in view of Wang et al. (CN 105206757 A, machine translated English version is referred to) as applied to claims 1-6, 8-12, and 16-19 above, further in view of Youn et al. (US 2019/0131580 A1, hereafter Youn).
Regarding claim 20, the Organic light emitting device of Tsai as modified by Wang reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, a first emission layer, an n-type charge generating layer (a sublayer 1 - PCBM doped with a second inorganic material ZnF2; a sublayer 2 - an alkali or alkaline earth compound), an interlayer (a first inorganic material, boron), a p-type charge generating layer (NPB doped with a first inorganic material, Bi2Te3), a second emission layer, an electron transport layer, and a second electrode (cathode).
Tsai in view of Wang does not disclose a specific flat display apparatus comprising the Organic light emitting device of Tsai as modified by Wang.
Youn discloses a flat panel display apparatus (i.e. OLED display device in [0003], [0005]).
Youn teaches the flat panel display apparatus (100 in Fig. 1) comprising an organic light emitting device (EA in Fig. 1) and a thin film transistor (CA in Fig. 1, and [0025]-[0029]). Youn teaches the thin film transistor comprises a source electrode (103b), a drain electrode (103c), and an activation layer (103a), and the source electrode of the thin film transistor is electrically coupled with the first electrode (111) of the organic light emitting device (Fig. 1, [0048]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Tsai as modified by Wang by incorporating it into a flat display apparatus, as taught by Tsai, Wang, and Youn.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the organic light emitting devices in a flat display apparatus would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The resultant device is the Flat display apparatus of Tsai as modified by Wang and Youn comprising the Organic light emitting device of Tsai as modified by Wang and a thin film transistor wherein the thin film transistor comprises a source electrode, a drain electrode, and an activation layer; and the first electrode of the Organic light emitting device of Tsai as modified by Wang is electrically coupled with one of source and the drain electrodes of the thin film transistor.
Claims 1-12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rausch et al. (US 2017/0229669 A1, hereafter Rausch) in view of Youn et al. (US 2019/0131580 A1), Liao et al. (US 2006/0040132 A1, hereafter Liao), and Wang et al. (CN 105206757 A, machine translated English version is referred to).
Regarding claims 1-12 and 16-20, Rausch discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode (anode, 4), an emission unit (first emitter layer, 1), an n-type charge generating layer (n-conductive organic layer (n-CGL), 6), a conversion layer (3) a p-type charge generating layer (p-conductive organic layer (p-CGL), 7), an emission unit (second emitter layer, 2), and a second electrode (cathode, 5) (Fig. 1, [0063]-[0071]).
Rausch does not exemplifies a specific organic light emitting device comprising an Na-doped BCP layer as the n-type charge generation layer and TPD as the p-type charge generation layer; however, Rausch does teach that the n-conducting layer can be BCP doped with Na ([0020]-[0021]) and the p-conducting layer comprises a matrix material such as TPD and a p-dopant material ([0023]-[0024]).
PNG
media_image3.png
331
467
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The TPD reads on Applicant’s Formula 202 of claim 1, wherein the diphenyl amino group enclosed by a dashed circle is the substituent of a substituted or unsubstituted C6-C60 aryl group (i.e. phenyl) at R201.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic light emitting device of Rausch by incorporating BCP doped with Na into the n-conducting layer material and TPD doped with a p-dopant as the p-conducting layer material, as taught by Rausch.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the exemplified n-conducting layer materials would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The selection of the n-conducting layer material would have been one from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
The modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of Rausch comprising a first electrode (anode), an emission unit, an n-type charge generating layer (BCP doped with Na), a conversion layer, a p-type charge generating layer (TPD doped with a p-dopant), an emission unit, and a second electrode (cathode).
Rausch teaches that the converter material in the conversion layer converts the radiation of the first and/or the second wavelength range into radiation of a third wavelength range in an organic light emitting device, wherein the first and the second radiation comes from the first and the second emitting layers ([0011]). Rausch exemplifies semiconductor quantum dots used as the converter material including GaAs and CdS ([0038]). While Rausch teaches that various quantum dot materials, Rausch does not exemplifies a specific quantum dot material which reads on the first inorganic material of the instant claims.
Youn teaches quantum dot materials including AlSb and InSb as well as CdS and GaAs used as the wavelength converter materials in an organic light emitting device ([0045], [0011]). AlSb and InSb each has different band gaps from CdS (or GaAs) such that AlSb and InSb can be used instead of CdS (or GaAs) in order to adjust and change the conversion wavelength of the organic light emitting device. Youn teaches that the wavelength conversion layer including quantum dots provide a high color gamut ([0046]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified organic light emitting device of Rausch by incorporating AlSb or InSb as the wavelength converter material of the conversion layer, as taught by Rausch and Youn.
The motivation of doing so would have been to adjust and/or change the conversion wavelength of the device and to provide high color gamut, based on the teaching of Youn.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). AlSb and InSb are both known materials used as the wavelength conversion layer of an organic light emitting device such that substitution of CdS (or GaAs) with AlSb or InSb would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Rausch as modified by Youn comprising a first electrode (anode), an emission unit, an n-type charge generating layer (BCP doped with Na), a conversion layer (AlSb or InSb), a p-type charge generating layer (TPD doped with p-dopant), an emission unit, and a second electrode (cathode).
Each emission unit does not comprise a hole transport layer comprising a first inorganic material.
Liao discloses a stacked organic light emitting device (Fig. 3)
Liao teaches each emission unit (“EL unit”) can have a structure comprises a hole transport layer (“HTL”), an emission layer (“light emitting layer”, “LEL”), and an electron transport layer (“ETL”) ([0052]).
Wang discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an electron transport layer containing an electron transport material doped with an n-type dopant, and a hole transport layer containing a hole transport material doped with a p-dopant (page 2, the first par.).
Wang exemplifies ZnF2 as the n-dopant material and Bi2Te3 as the p-dopant material (page 4, the 4th par.) Wang exemplifies a fullerene derivative (PCBM) as the electron transport material (page 5, par. 1). The PCBM reads on Applicant’s Formula 601 of claim 10, wherein Ar601 is a substituted C5-C60 carbocyclic group (the spherical condensed rings); xe11 is 1; xe1 is 0; xe21 is 1; and R601 is a substituted or unsubstituted C6-C60 aryl group (phenyl).
Wang teaches that the organic light emitting device of Wang provides improved efficiency and reduced voltage (last paragraph of page 1 through the first paragraph of page 2).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Rausch as modified by Youn by incorporating an electron transport layer of PCBM doped with ZnF2; and a hole transport layer of a hole transport material doped with Bi2Te3 in each of the emission unit, as taught by Liao and Wang.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide improved efficiency and reduced voltage, based on the teaching of Wang.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Rausch as modified by Youn, Liao, and Wang comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer containing a hole transport material doped with Bi2Te3, a first emission layer, an electron transport layer containing PCBM doped with ZnF2, an n-type charge generating layer (BCP doped with Na), a conversion layer (AlSb or InSb), a p-type charge generating layer (TPD doped with p-dopant), a hole transport layer containing a hole transport material doped with Bi2Te3, a second emission layer, an electron transport layer containing PCBM doped with ZnF2, and a second electrode (cathode).
The conversion layer is equated with an interlayer of the instant claims.
None of the instant claims requires the n-type charge generation layer to be made of homogenous mixture of constituent materials. The combined sublayers of the electron transport layer (i.e. sublayer 1) and the n-type charge generating layer (i.e. sublayer 2) can be interpreted as a composite layer which is capable of n-type charge generation; therefore, the combined layer (the first underlined structure in the device above) is equated with an n-type charge generating layer. Similarly, none of the instant claims requires the p-type charge generation layer to be made of homogenous mixture of constituent materials. The combined sublayers of the p-type charge generating layer (sublayer 1) and the hole transport layer (i.e. sublayer 2) can be interpreted as a composite layer which is capable of p-type charge generation; therefore, the combined layer (the second underlined structure in the device above) is equated with an p-type charge generating layer.
The Organic light emitting device of Rausch as modified by Youn, Liao, and Wang is equated with a device comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, a first emission layer, an n-type charge generating layer (sublayer 1 - PCBM doped with ZnF2, and sublayer 2 - BCP doped with Na), an interlayer layer (AlSb or InSb), a p-type charge generating layer (sublayer 1 - TPD doped with p-dopant, sublayer 2 - a hole transport material doped with Bi2Te3), a second emission layer, an electron transport layer, and a second electrode (cathode), meeting all the limitations of claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-11, and 16-19.
With respect to claims 5 and 9, the first inorganic material Bi2Te3 reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach the material property of Bi2Te3 including 1) an absolute value of a work function of the first inorganic material being about 3.0 eV or more; and 2) a thermal evaporation temperature of the first inorganic material being about 1000 °C or less.
It is reasonable to presume that the material properties described in 1) and 2) are inherently to the first inorganic material Bi2Te3 of the Organic light emitting device of Rausch as modified by Youn, Liao, and Wang.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification states that in one or more embodiments, an absolute value of a work function of the first inorganic material may be about 3.0 eV or more ([0053]). The instant specification states that the thermal evaporation temperature of the first inorganic material may be from 250 °C to about 550 °C ([0061]). Bi2Te3 is one of specific examples of the first inorganic materials in the instant disclosure ([0059]).
Therefore, the first inorganic material Bi2Te3, wherein 1) an absolute value of a work function of the first inorganic material is about 3.0 eV or more; and 2) a thermal evaporation temperature of the first inorganic material is about 1000 °C or less, meeting all the limitations of claims 5 and 9.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the Organic light emitting device of Rausch as modified by Youn, Liao, and Wang is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
With respect to claim 12, Rausch in view of Youn, Liao, and Wang discloses the claimed invention except for that the doping amount of the first inorganic material Bi2Te3 is in a range of about 0.01 parts by weight to about 49.9 parts by weight. It should be noted that the doping amount of the BiTe3 in the p-type charge generating layer is a result effective variable. Wang teaches that the doping amount of the Bi2Te3 would result in improving the conductive efficiency, the scattering effect, and the light output rate of the device (page 5, par. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to create the p-type charge generating layer doped by the Bi2Te3 with the doing amount in a range of about 0.01 parts by weight to about 49.9 parts by weight since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the conductivity, the scattering effect, and the light output rate, meeting all the limitations of claim 12.
With respect to claim 20, Rausch in view of Youn, Liao, and Wang does not disclose a specific flat display apparatus comprising the Organic light emitting device of Rausch as modified by Youn, Liao, and Wang.
Youn discloses a flat panel display apparatus (i.e. OLED display device in [0003], [0005]).
Youn teaches the flat panel display apparatus (100 in Fig. 1) comprising an organic light emitting device (EA in Fig. 1) and a thin film transistor (CA in Fig. 1, and [0025]-[0029]). Kim ‘950 teaches the thin film transistor comprises a source electrode (103b), a drain electrode (103c), and an activation layer (103a), and the source electrode of the thin film transistor is electrically coupled with the first electrode (111) of the organic light emitting device (Fig. 1, [0048]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Rausch as modified by Youn, Liao, and Wang by incorporating it into a flat display apparatus, as taught by Rausch, Youn, Liao, and Wang.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the organic light emitting devices in a flat display apparatus would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The resultant device is the Flat display apparatus of Rausch, Youn, Liao, and Wang comprising the Organic light emitting device of Rausch, Youn, Liao, and Wang and a thin film transistor wherein the thin film transistor comprises a source electrode, a drain electrode, and an activation layer; and the first electrode of the Organic light emitting device of Rausch, Youn, Liao, and Wang is electrically coupled with one of source and the drain electrodes of the thin film transistor, meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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, JENNIFER BOYD can be reached at (571)272-7783. 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.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights