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 .
Response to Amendments
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed 03/19/2026 (“A...”), in which: claim 1 is amended; no claims are cancelled; no new claims are added; and the rejections of the claims are traversed. Claims 1 – 3 and 5 – 20 are currently pending an Office action on the merits as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed March 19th, 2026 (“REM”) have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 6 - 7 of the instant Remarks:
The prior art of record, specifically regarding claim 1, fails to disclose the newly amended features of the hole transport region wherein:
... wherein the hole transport region comprises a hole transport layer, ...
... a thickness of the hole transport region is 300 Å or less.
Respectfully, examiner disagrees that the prior art of record does not teach the above features. Examiner believes that that interpreting Shin’s hole transport layer as a hole transporting region including a hole transport layer as appropriate in the present rejection because denominations for hole transport layers/regions within the art of OLED display panel/devices/apparatus is often interchangeable and the examiner see’s no present evidence at this time that would not permit such an interpretation. Thus, it is the examiner’s opinion that Shin teaches a hole transport region ... wherein the hole transport region comprises a hole transport layer.
Further, Lee (relied upon for the explicit teaching of a hole transport layer not including p-type dopants) teaches a hole transport thickness range of 100 to 1000 Å ([0039]). Thus, it is the examiner’s opinion that Lee also teaches a thickness of the hole transport region is 300 Å or less.
For the above reasons, the examiner is not persuaded that the newly amended features is patentable over the prior art of record. See updated rejections below wherein the art of record teaches the amended feature of claim 1.
Further, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 3 and 5 – 20 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 5 – 6, 14 – 15, and 18 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US 20190334108 A1), further in view of Aonuma et al. (US 20140349432 A1), Chan et al. (US 20180083161 A1), and Lee et al. (US 20090072720 A1).
Regarding independent Claim 1, Shin teaches a light-emitting device comprising:
a substrate comprising glass or plastic ([0044]);
a first electrode (Fig. 6; examiner is interpreting the first electrode to be 310 and 321 as taught in [0070] and [0071], respectively) …
a second electrode facing the first electrode (Fig. 6; element 330 and [0069]), and an interlayer comprising (Fig. 6; elements EIL, ETL, EML, and HTL):
an emission layer (Fig. 6; element EML) between the first electrode and the second electrode (Fig. 6),
a hole transport [[layer]] region (Fig. 6; the region including the hole transport layer HTL is being considered by the examiner as a hole transport region) between the first electrode and the emission layer (Fig. 6), and
an electron transport region (ETL) between the emission layer and the second electrode (Fig. 6), wherein:
the hole transport region comprises a hole transport layer (Fig. 6; the region includes the hole transport layer HTL),
the first electrode and the hole transport layer are in direct contact (Fig. 6),
the first electrode has a multi-layered structure ([0070]; line 12), in which a first layer to an mth layer (321) (m is an integer of 3 or more) are sequentially stacked ([0070]; lines 10 – 16), … and
an absolute value of a work function of the first inorganic material is greater than or equal to an absolute value of a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) energy level of the hole transport layer (Shin teaches the work function of 321 in [0070], and the HOMO of the hole transport layer HTL is less than the HOMO of the hole injection layer HIL, which is less than the Fermi level of 321, as taught in [0092]. Also see [0090] and Fig. 5 ), [[and]] …
However, Shin does not explicitly teach the light-emitting device wherein:
the first electrode is … on the substrate; …
… the mth layer consists of a first inorganic material comprising:
a mixed material in which ln2O3 is doped with a concentration of 5 wt% or less in at least one selected from SnO2, MoO3, and WOx; …
the hole transport layer does not comprise a p-dopant, and
a thickness of the hole transport region is 300 Å or less.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Aonuma teaches an organic electroluminescent element 100 wherein a first electrode, i.e., anode 108 (Fig. 1), is disposed directly on a substrate 109. Further, Aonuma teaches that the substrate may include glass or plastic ([0082]). Thus, the first electrode on the substrate would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention, further in view of Aonuma.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Shin’s display device to include Aonuma’s display element structure wherein the first electrode on the substrate, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Aonuma’s first electrode is comparable to Shin’s first electrode because they both function as first electrodes in a light emitting diode. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shin’s display device to include Aonuma’s display element structure wherein the first electrode on the substrate with the predictable result of forming light emitting diodes over a substrate structure.
Further, the examiner notes that Shin does disclose ln2O3 as a material for the first electrode ([0070]), but they remains silent on doping techniques thereof, let alone the weight percent (wt%) of the dopants.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chan discloses a technique for application to displays/light-emitting devices, wherein a transparent semiconducting film, i.e., dual film 23, interpreted by the examiner to be analogues to the instant first electrode (See [0053] when Chan states that the transparent semiconducting film can be directly used in light-emitting devices as a surface electrode), is formed on a substrate 1 and includes a multi-layered structure of a bottom film 2 and a top film 3 with a textured surface sequentially deposited on a substrate (Fig. 1, [0080], and [0054]). Chan goes on to teach that the bottom film further includes a first metal oxide, ln2O3, doped with a second metal oxide, one from a group including SnO2 and WOx; and the doping is disclosed to be expressed as a weight ratio, i.e., wt%, of the second metal oxide to the first metal oxide of 1:99 – 1:9, i.e., ~ 1% to ~ 11%. Thus, the construction of a multilayered first electrode that includes a mixed material in which ln2O3 is doped with a concentration of 5 wt% or less in at least one selected from SnO2, MoO3, and WOx
Therefore, ln2O3 is doped with a concentration of 5 wt% or less in at least one selected from SnO2, MoO3, and WOx would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, from at least [0054] of Chan because absent evidence or disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d454, 105 USQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Shin’s first electrode to include ln2O3 is doped with a concentration of 5 wt% or less in at least one selected from SnO2, MoO3, and WOx, as disclosed by Chan, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Chan’s transparent semiconducting film, i.e., dual film 23, is comparable to Shin’s first electrode because they may both be multi-layered electrodes constructed with the intent to improve the light extraction of a light-emitting device. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shin’s first electrode to include ln2O3 is doped with a concentration of 5 wt% or less in at least one selected from SnO2, MoO3, and WOx, as disclosed by Chan, with the predictable result of improving light extraction for a light-emitting device (Chan:[0053]).
Further, Shin does not explicitly teach a specific material for the hole transport layer. However, Shin does not discuss adding any dopants to the hole transport layer so that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to follow the teachings of Shin without deviation and use known hole transport materials without adding any dopants to the hole transport layer, furthermore such hole transport layers without p-type dopants were very well known to those of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Regardless, in the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches, shown in Fig. 2, a hole transport layer HTL’, wherein hole transport layer HTL’ is explicitly taught as not including a p-type dopant ([0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Shin’s light-emitting device to include no p-type dopant, explicitly taught by Lee, because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify Shin’s hole transport layer to include no p-type dopants is expressly provided by Lee, stating that the hole transport layer HTL' and the electron transport layer ETL' do not include a p-type dopant and an n-type dopant ([0054]). The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of using less material to make a light-emitting device.
Further, Lee also teaches a thickness of the hole transport region is 300 Å or less in [0039]; wherein in the case the HTL layer includes or does not include p-type dopants, the thickness discloses by Lee is in the range of 100 to 1000 Å.
Therefore, a thickness of the hole transport region is 300 Å or less, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, from at least [0039] of Kim, because absent evidence or disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d454, 105 USQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995).
Regarding dependent Claim 2, Shin, further in view of Aonuma, Chan, and Lee, teach the light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein:
m is 3, the first layer comprises ITO, the second layer comprises Ag, and the third layer consists of the first inorganic material,
Shin teaches in [0070] the layer 310 as comprising two layers ITO and Ag, in that order. The layer 321 consists of the first organic material, and is interpreted to be the mth layer.
m is 3, the first layer and the third layer each consist of the first inorganic material, and the second layer comprises Ag, or
m is 4, the first and third layers each comprise ITO, the second layer comprises Ag, and the fourth layer consists of the first inorganic material.
Regarding dependent Claim 3, Shin, further in view of Aonuma, Chan, and Lee, teach the light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein:
the absolute value of the work function of the first inorganic material is 5.20 eV or more (Shin: [0087]; line 4).
Regarding dependent Claim 5, Shin, further in view of Aonuma, Chan, and Lee, teach the light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein:
the mth layer and the hole transport layer make an ohmic contact (Shin: Fig. 6 and [0103]).
Regarding dependent Claim 6, Shin, further in view of Aonuma, Chan, and Lee, teach the light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein:
an absolute value of a HOMO energy level of the hole transport layer is 5.15 eV or less.
Shin teaches in [0106] that the work function of layer 310 is 4.9 to 5.1 eV and shows in Fig. 5 that the value of the HOMO energy level of the hole transport layer is less than that.
Regarding dependent Claim 14, Shin, further in view of Aonuma, Chan, and Lee, teach the light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein:
the emission layer comprises a host and a dopant, and the dopant comprises a phosphorescent dopant, a fluorescent dopant, or any combination thereof,
the emission layer comprises quantum dots, or
the emission layer comprises a delayed fluorescence material, and the delayed fluorescence material functions as a host or a dopant in the emission layer (Shin: [0081] teaches Alq3).
Regarding dependent Claim 15, Shin, further in view of Aonuma, Chan, and Lee, teach the light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein:
the first electrode is an anode (Shin: [0070]), and
the second electrode is a cathode (Shin: [0082]).
Regarding dependent Claim 18, Shin, further in view of Aonuma, Chan, and Lee, teach an electronic apparatus comprising:
the light-emitting device of claim 1 (Shin: Fig. 1)
Regarding dependent Claim 19, Shin, further in view of Aonuma, Chan, and Lee, teach the electronic apparatus of claim 18, further comprising:
a thin-film transistor (Shin: [0040]), wherein
the thin-film transistor comprises a source electrode (Shin: Fig. 2; element S1) and a drain electrode (Shin: Fig. 2; element D1), and
the first electrode of the light-emitting device is electrically connected to at least one of the source electrode and the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor (Shin: Fig. 2).
Regarding dependent Claim 20, Shin, further in view of Aonuma, Chan, and Lee, teach the electronic apparatus of claim 18, wherein:
the electronic apparatus comprises a color filter, a color conversion layer, a touch screen layer, a polarizing layer, or any combination thereof (Shin: [0067]).
Claims 7 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US 20190334108 A1), and further in view of Aonuma et al. (US 20140349432 A1), Chan et al. (US 20180083161 A1), Lee et al. (US 20090072720 A1) and Steckel et al. (US 20170271605 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 7, Shin, further in view of Aonuma, Chan, and Lee, teach the light-emitting device of claim 1. However, Shin does not explicitly teach wherein:
the hole transport layer comprises a metal oxide.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Steckel teaches in [0016] – [0019] that the hole transport layer may include metal oxides, and may also be present in the device as an undoped layer, i.e., the hole transport layer may not include a p-type dopant.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Shin’s light-emitting device to include a hole transport layer that comprises a metal oxide, as disclosed by Steckel, because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, Shin’s hole transporting layer and Steckel’s hole transporting layer perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being functioning as a layer to transport holes. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of Shin’s hole transporting layer by replacing it with Steckel’s hole transporting layer. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Regarding dependent Claim 8, Shin, further in view of Aonuma, Chan, Lee, and Steckel, teach the light-emitting device of claim 7, wherein:
the metal oxide is WO3, MoO3, ZnO, Cu2O, CuO, CoO, Ga2O3, GeO2, or any combination thereof, and the metal oxide is different from the first inorganic material.
Steckel teaches at least ZnO as the metal oxide that the hole transport includes (Steckel: [0016]); and Shin teaches the first organic material may be MoO3 in [0074].
Claims 9 – 13 and 16 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US 20190334108 A1), and further in view of Aonuma et al. (US 20140349432 A1), Chan et al. (US 20180083161 A1), Lee et al. (US 20090072720 A1) and Hur et al. (US 20200274073 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 9, Shin, further in view of Aonuma, Chan, and Lee, teach the light-emitting device of claim 1; however, Shin remains silent regarding the light-emitting device further comprising:
an electron- blocking layer between the hole transport layer and the emission layer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hur teaches a light-emitting device including:
an electron- blocking layer (Hur: Fig. 2; element 131) between the hole transport layer and the emission layer (Hur: Fig. 2; element 131, where elements 132 and 150 are a hole transport later and emission layer, respectively. Also see [0085] of Hur).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Shin’s light-emitting device to include the electron-blocking layer of Hur because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, Shin’s light emitting device as modified by Hur’s electron-blocking layer can yield a predictable result of increasing the efficiency of the light emitting layer since excitons may be sufficiently trapped in the emission layer (Hur: [0158]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated including in Shin’s light-emitting device the ability to do electron blocking since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding dependent Claim 10, Shin, further in view of Aonuma, Chan, Lee, and Hur, teach the light-emitting device of claim 9, wherein:
an absolute value of a HOMO energy level of the electron-blocking layer (Hur teaches in [0158] the electron-blocking layer may have a lowest excitation triplet energy level that lies in the range of 2.5 – 3.5 eV) is equal to or greater than an absolute value of a HOMO energy level of the emission layer (Hur teaches in [0079] the host material of the emission layer may have a lowest excitation triplet energy level of 2.7 eV or less), and is equal to or less than an absolute value of a HOMO energy level of the hole transport layer (Hur teaches in [0146] – [0148] the magnitude of the lowest excitation triplet energy level for the hole transport layer to be 3.5 eV).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Shin’s light-emitting device to include the layers with these relative energy values because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, Shin’s light-emitting device as modified by the electron-blocking layer, emission layer, and hole transport layer of Hur can yield a predictable result of not necessitating a high driving voltage since current can be conducted through the layers of the device. Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated including in Shin’s light-emitting device the ability to conduct current through a light-emitting device as disclosed by Hur since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding dependent Claim 11, Shin, further in view of Aonuma, Chan, and Lee, teach the light-emitting device of claim 1; However, Shin remains silent wherein:
the electron transport region comprises a buffer layer, a hole-blocking layer, an electron control layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, or any combination thereof.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hur teaching a light emitting device wherein:
the electron transport region comprises a buffer layer, a hole-blocking layer, an electron control layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, or any combination thereof (Hur teaches in [0245] the electron transport region 170 may include any of a buffer layer, hole blocking layer, electron control layer, electron transport layer, and/or electron injection layer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Shin’s light-emitting device to include the electron transport region of Hur, because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, Shin’s light emitting device as modified by Hur’s electron transport region can yield a predictable result of increasing the efficiency of the light emitting layer since excitons may be sufficiently trapped in the emission layer (Hur: [0247]). Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding dependent Claim 12, Shin, further in view of Aonuma, Chan, Lee, and Hur, teach the light-emitting device of claim 11, wherein:
the electron transport region comprises a hole-blocking layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer, which are sequentially arranged between the emission layer and the second electrode.
Hur teaches in [0246]; lines 4 – 5 that the electron transport region comprises the sequence of layers,
“a hole blocking layer/electron transport layer/electron injection layer structure"
Regarding dependent Claim 13, Shin, further in view of Aonuma, Chan, Lee and Hur, teach the light-emitting device of claim 12, wherein:
an absolute value of a HOMO energy level of the hole-blocking layer (Hur teaches in [0247] the hole-blocking layer may have a lowest excitation triplet energy level in the range of 2.5 – 3.5 eV) is equal to or less than an absolute value of a HOMO energy level of the emission layer, (Hur teaches in [0079] the host material of the emission layer may have a lowest excitation triplet energy level of 2.7 eV or less) and is equal to or less than an absolute value of a HOMO energy level of the electron transport layer (Hur teaches in [0255] the material of the hole-blocking layer material may be identical to the electron transport host material).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Shin’s light-emitting device to include the layers with these relative energy values because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, Shin’s light-emitting device as modified by Hur’s electron transport region can yield a predictable result of not necessitating a high driving voltage since current can be conducted through the layers of the device. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding dependent Claim 16, Shin, further in view of Aonuma, Chan, and Lee, teach the light-emitting device of claim 1; However, Shin remains silent regarding the light-emitting device of claim 1 further comprising:
at least one of a first capping layer outside the first electrode and a second capping layer outside the second electrode,
wherein each of the first capping layer and the second capping layer comprises a material having a refractive index of 1.6 or more at a wavelength of 589 nm.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hur teaches capping layers. Examining the disclosure of Hur, in [0339] – [0344] teaches a capping layer for the device 20 as drawn in Fig. 2. Hur discloses the capping layer is in a direction in which light is extracted and the capping layer increases external luminescence efficiency working from the principle of constructive interference. Most of the materials disclosed for the capping layer can be found in [0341] of Hur. Additionally, Hur teaches the capping layer may be a composite material, known to mean a heterogeneous material which allows the capping layer to be interpreted as two distinct structures due to the change of material composition of the layer; where a first capping layer is around the first electrode and a second capping layer is around the second electrode. A first material as taught by Hur may be an alkali metal complex such as potassium hydrogen phthalate (C8H5KO4) which has an index of refraction of 1.66 between 582 – 593 nm. A Second materials as taught by Hur may be a heterocyclic compound such as Cinnamaldehyde (C9H8O) which has a refractive index of 1.62 at 582 nm.
A reference for the refractive index of potassium hydrogen phthalate and cinnamaldehyde may be found, respectively, at:
https://refractiveindex.info/?shelf=organic&book=potassium_hydrogen_phthalate&page=Moutzouris-%CE%B1, and
https://refractiveindex.info/?shelf=organic&book=cinnamaldehyde&page=Rheims.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the light-emitting device of Shin to include the capping layers of Hur because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, the capping layer of Shin as modified by the capping layers of Hur can yield a predictable result of increasing external luminescence efficient since the capping layers are able to provide constructive interference for light traveling from the device. Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated including in Shin’s light-emitting device the ability to do increased luminescence efficiency since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding dependent Claim 17, Shin, further in view of Aonuma, Chan, and Lee, teach the light-emitting device of claim 1; however, Shin remains silent wherein the interlayer comprises:
two or more light-emitting units sequentially stacked between the first electrode and the second electrode; and
one or more charge generation layers between any neighboring two light emitting units among the two or more light-emitting units.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hur discloses a light-emitting device wherein:
two or more light-emitting units sequentially stacked between the first electrode and the second electrode; and
Hur teaches in [0069], [0091], [0316] that light emission occurs at two locations, the interface between the layers 150 and 140 and between the layers 150 and 160. These two interfaces are interpreted to be light-emitting units, which are sequentially stacked between in the first and second electrodes as shown in Fig. 2. Additional light-emitting units disclosed as emission auxiliary layers may be found in region 130 as taught in [0105].
one or more charge generation layers between any neighboring two light emitting units among the two or more light-emitting units.
Hur teaches in [0146] that the region 130 may contain charge-generating materials dispersed within. The allows the charge-generating materials to lie between the light-emitting unit of the region 130 and the light-emitting unit at the interface between 150 and 140.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Shin’s light-emitting device to include the light emitting units and charge generation layers of Hur because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, Shin’s light-emitting device as modified by the light emitting units and charge generation layers of Hur can yield a predictable result of increased lifespan of the light emitting unit and improved conductive properties of the device, respectively, since the concentration of triplet excitons formed by triplet quenching can be reduced (Hur: [0069]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated including in Shin’s light-emitting device the ability to do improve device conductivity and lifespan since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20060017055 A1 teaches a n-type doped hole transport layer. See [0047] and [0130].
US 20170033301 A1, US 20170033306 A1, US 20110036391 A1, and US 20140054578 A1 were all considered for their teachings of multilayered electrodes for use in light emitting devices.
US 20040081836 A1, US 20130306956 A1, US 20140252319 A1, US 20130126843 A1, and US 20200127221 A1 were all considered for their use in the EPO search opinion as found in Global Dossier.
A.H.Y. Hendi, M.F. Al-Kuhaili, Durrani, S. M. A., Faiz, M. M., A. Ul-Hamid, Qurashi, A., & Khan, I. (2017). “Modulation of the band gap of tungsten oxide thin films through mixing with cadmium telluride towards photovoltaic applications”. Materials Research Bulletin, 87, 148–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.materresbull.2016.11.032 teaches properties of tungsten oxide.
Hoshi, T., Kumagai, K., Inoue, K., Enomoto, S., Nobe, Y., & Kobayashi, M. (2008). “Electronic absorption and emission spectra of Alq3 in solution with special attention to a delayed fluorescence”. Journal of Luminescence, 128(8), 1353–1358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlumin.2008.01.003 teaches the delayed fluorescence of Alq3.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MARIO A AUTORE whose telephone number is (571)270-0059. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 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, Chad Dicke can be reached on (571) 270-7996. 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.
MARIO A. AUTORE JR.
Examiner
Art Unit 2897
/MARIO ANDRES AUTORE JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2897 /CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights