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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/12/2026 has been entered.
Status of the claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on 02/04/2026.
Claims 1, 4-9, 11-12, 14-20 are pending, claims 18-20 are withdrawn, and elected claims 1, 4-9, 11-12, 14-17 are considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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) 1, 4-9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Lee (2008/0143252 A1) as evidenced by or alternatively in view of Kim et al, The Journal Of Physical Chemistry C, 115, 6599-66409 (2011) and further in view of Kwon (US 20080111484) and alternatively further in view of Miyaguchi (US 5953585) and Kumar (Polymers, 2016).
In reference to claim 1, Lee discloses:
an OLED (200, abstract, Figure 1) (corresponds to A light-emitting device)
comprising:
- a second electrode (190), which when reflective can be formed of Aluminum and alloys thereof ([27]) (corresponds to a first electrode and the first electrode comprises aluminum)
-a first electrode (110, [16], Figure 1) (corresponds to a second electrode facing the first electrode)
-Layers 120, 130, 140, 150, 160, 170, 180 (corresponds to an interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode)
Comprising:
-emission layer (150, [20], Figure 1) (corresponds to an emission layer)
-hole injection layer (180), hole transport layer (170), and electron blocking layer (160) ([22-23], Figure 1) between the electrode (190) and the emission layer (150) (corresponds to a hole transport region between the first electrode and the emission layer and to wherein the hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer and a hole transport layer, sequentially arranged between the first electrode and the emission layer)
-hole blocking layer (140), electron transport layer (130), and electron injection layer (120) ([18-19], Figure 1) between the electrode (110) and the emission layer (150) (corresponds to an electron transport region between the emission layer and the second electrode)
-the hole injection layer (180) is suitably WO3 ([24], Figure 1) (corresponds to wherein the hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer and to the hole injection layer consists of a first inorganic material including WOx (wherein x=3))
Lee does not specifically disclose that the absolute value of a work function of the first inorganic material is greater than or equal to an absolute value of a HOMO energy level of the hole transport layer.
Lee discloses that the hole transport layer is suitably NPB ([22]) and the hole injection layer (180) is suitably WO3 ([24]). The absolute value of a work function of the first inorganic material (WO3) is greater than or equal to an absolute value of a HOMO energy level of the hole transport layer (NPB) (as evidenced by Figure 5 of Kim and because the materials are the same as those currently claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Lee to use NPB as the hole transport layer in conjunction with the WO3 as the hole injection layer, as Lee discloses those materials to be suitable for use in the device of the invention.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to utilize the NPB in combination with an Al based electrode as the inverted OLED anode and WO3 as the hole injection layer, as Kim discloses that this leads to high current density, low turn-on voltage, high EL efficiency and provides a low hole injection barrier (section 3.4). Additionally, the use of NPB/WO3 is a known combination of hole transport/hole injection materials used in the art and it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan to use them in combination.
Additionally, the hole transport region excludes a p-dopant (the materials used are disclosed to be only WO3 and NPB).
Modified Lee does not specifically disclose that the first electrode comprises AlNiLa, AlNiGeLa, AlcoGeLa or any combination thereof.
However, modified Lee discloses that when the anode is reflective, aluminum or alloys thereof are suitable [27].
Kwon discloses that when the anode of an OLED is reflective, Aluminum and AlNiLa are both suitable [14, 33]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Lee to have the anode formed of AlNiLa, as Lee discloses that aluminum and alloys thereof are suitable and Kwon discloses the AlNiLa is equally suitable to aluminum for use as the reflective anode in an OLED. The selection of a known material for its intended purpose is within the ambit of an ordinary artisan.
The limitation “wherein the first electrode is dry etched” is considered a product-by-process limitation. There is no specific structure implied by the product by process limitations other than the first electrode is present, absent evidence to the contrary. The specification does not provide for any particular structure required by the limitation. The claim does not require any particular amount of material removal or thickness of the first electrode or a patten to be present. Therefore Lee teaches this limitation, as the first electrode is present, absent evidence to the contrary.
Alternatively, modified Lee does not specifically disclose the method step of dry etching the first electrode. Lee discloses that the device of the invention is a display device [3]). Miyaguchi discloses that in order to provide a display device with the OLED elements, one would pattern the elements, including by dry etching the anode, organic substances and the cathode, in order to make an arrangement with one or more organic electroluminescent elements (abstract). Additionally, dry etching is a well-known method for removing material and has advantages over other etching methods such as wet etching, as described by Kumar (2.2.2 Dry Etching).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify modified Lee by patterning the organic electroluminescent element by the well-known method of dry etching (including the first electrode) in order to include one or more organic electroluminescent elements into a display device, as is desired by Lee, as described above.
In reference to claim 4, Lee as evidenced by or in view of Kim discloses that the work function of WO3 is at least 6.42 eV (Figure 5, Kim).
In reference to claim 5, Lee discloses hole injection layer is WO3 (as described above) (corresponds to the first inorganic material comprises WO3).
In reference to claim 6, it is the examiners position that the limitation “wherein the first electrode and the hole injection layer are collectively dry-etched” is a product-by-process limitation. There is no specific structure implied by the product limitations other than they are present, absent evidence to the contrary. Therefore, Lee teaches this limitation, as the first electrode and the hole injection layers are present in the device. Alternatively, modified Lee discloses that the first electrode and hole-injection layer are collectively dry-etched in view of Miyaguchi, as described above.
In reference to claim 7, Lee as evidenced by or in view of Kim discloses that the HOMO level of the NPB (corresponds to the hole transport layer) is less than 5.15 eV (see Figure 5, Kim).
In reference to claim 8, Lee discloses that the hole transport material is NPB (N,N’ -bis(1-naphthyl)-N,N’ -diphenyl-1,1’ - biphenyl-4,4’ -diamine)
PNG
media_image1.png
238
270
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Corresponds to wherein the hole transport region comprises a compound represented by Formula 202, xa1-4=0, na1 =1, R201 and R203 are unsubstituted C6 carbocycles, R202 and R204 are substituted C6 carbocycles wherein one R10a is a C6 carbocycle; L205 is an unsubstituted C6 carbocycle and ax5 is 2).
In reference to claim 9, Lee discloses an electron blocking layer (160) ([22-23], Figure 1) between the hole transport layer (170) and the emission layer (150) (corresponds to the hole transport region further comprises an electron blocking layer between the hole transport layer and the emission layer)
In reference to claim 11, Lee discloses hole blocking layer (140), electron transport layer (130), and electron injection layer (120) ([18-19], Figure 1) between the electrode (110) and the emission layer (150) (corresponds to the electron transport region comprises a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer).
In reference to claim 12, Lee discloses hole blocking layer (140), electron transport layer (130), and electron injection layer (120) ([18-19], Figure 1) between the electrode (110) and the emission layer (150) (corresponds to the electron transport region comprises a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer, sequentially arranged between the emission layer and the second electrode).
In reference to claim 14, Lee does not specifically disclose a single embodiment wherein the emission layer (150) is further a host and a dopant, and the dopant comprises a phosphorescent dopant, a fluorescent dopant, or any combination thereof, the emission layer comprises one or more 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.
However, Lee does disclose that the emission layer (150) can be a phosphorescent of fluorescent layer [19]. When the layer is phosphorescent, the layer contains a host and dopant, wherein the dopant is a phosphorescent dopant [20]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the emission layer with the phosphorescent dopant along with the host material, as this is taught to be a suitable composition for the emission layer of Lee.
In reference to claim 15, Lee discloses that the first electrode (190) is an anode and the second electrode (110) is a cathode ([17 and 27]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Lee (2008/0143252 A1) as evidenced by or alternatively in view of Kim et al, The Journal Of Physical Chemistry C, 115, 6599-66409 (2011) and further in view of Kwon (US 20080111484) and alternatively further in view of Miyaguchi (US 5953585) and Kumar (Polymers, 2016) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hwang (US 2016/0190450) and Khan (US 2012/0197179).
In reference to claim 16, modified Lee discloses the device of claim 1, as described above. Lee does not specifically disclose the claimed first and second capping layers.
Hwang discloses capping layers disposed outside of the electrodes in an OLED [141, 147, 148, 259]. The capping layers improve external luminous efficiency [260].
Khan discloses that suitable capping materials that enhance the emission of light from an OLED include NPB [63]. NPB is disclosed in the instant specification to meet the required refractive index [192 and 189].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include capping layers, including NPB, on the outside of each electrode, thereby meeting the claimed capping layers. One would have been motivated to do so, as the layers are taught to improve external luminous efficiency, as described above.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Lee (2008/0143252 A1) as evidenced by or alternatively in view of Kim et al, The Journal Of Physical Chemistry C, 115, 6599-66409 (2011) and further in view of Kwon (US 20080111484) and alternatively further in view of Miyaguchi (US 5953585) and Kumar (Polymers, 2016) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2016/0005990 A1).
In reference to claim 17, modified Lee discloses the device of claim 1, as described above. Lee does not specifically disclose that the interlayer comprises two or more light emitting units and at least one charge generation layer between the units, as claimed.
Lee ‘990 discloses tandem OLED structures comprising a charge generation layer (500) between the two units (300 and 400). The units are stacked sequentially between the electrodes (100 and 200) (Figure 1, [26-28]). OLEDs having this tandem structure offer high stability and operability for combining units to produce white light with high color purity [6, 17].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the device of Lee in to a tandem structure having the configuration of Lee ‘990 in order to offer high stability and operability for combining units to produce white light with high color purity, as described above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, section I., filed 02/04/2026, with respect to the 112d rejection of claim 2 has been fully considered and are persuasive, as the claim has been cancelled. The rejection of claim 2 has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues on page 9 that Kwon does not disclose, teach, or suggest, that the first electrode is dry etched and that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cited combination of references to have the first electrode be dry etched.
It is the examiner’s position that the limitation “wherein the first electrode is dry etched” is considered a product-by-process limitation. There is no specific structure implied by the product by process limitations other than the first electrode is present, absent evidence to the contrary. The specification does not provide for any particular structure required by the limitation nor does applicant argue any specific structure implied by the method limitation. The claim does not require any particular amount of material or thickness of the first electrode or a patten to be present. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that Lee teaches this limitation, as the first electrode is present, absent evidence to the contrary.
Alternatively, modified Lee does not appear to specifically disclose the method step of dry etching the first electrode. Lee discloses that the device of the invention is a display device [3]. Miyaguchi discloses that in order to provide a display device with the organic luminescent elements, one would pattern the elements, including by dry etching the anode, organic substances and the cathode, in order to make an arrangement with one or more organic electroluminescent elements in the display (abstract). Additionally, dry etching is a well-known method for removing material and has advantages over other etching methods such as wet etching, as described by Kumar (2.2.2 Dry Etching).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify modified Lee by patterning the organic electroluminescent element by the well-known method of dry etching (including the first electrode) in order to include one or more organic electroluminescent elements into a display device as is desired by Lee, as described above.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee (US 20120146032) discloses that dry or wet etching can be used to pattern OLED devices in a display.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARLA D MCCONNELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7692. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM - 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, TC 1700 Director Sri Kumar can be reached at (571) 272-7769. 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.
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789