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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 August 2025 have been fully considered, the responses are set forth below.
Regarding the Argument that Feng and Hou do not teach the newly amended limitations of “one of the first oxide layer or the second oxide layer includes a plurality of island-shaped oxide layers, another one of the first oxide layer or the second oxide layer includes one oxide layer, and the plurality of island-shaped oxide layers is covered with the one oxide layer” (Remarks; pages 2-5). This is persuasive, and the prior rejection in view of Hou is withdrawn.
However, newly cited reference, from the same field of endeavor, Chishio Hosokawa et al. (US 6284393 B1) teaches (Hosokawa; Fig. 8) a light emitting element (Fig. 8) which includes a first oxide layer (Fig. 8; oxide layer 6 including a plurality of island shapes; C5:L20-L26 and C8:L63-L65) including a plurality of island-shaped oxide layers, a second oxide layer includes one oxide layer (Fig. 8; oxide layer 5 which is one layer; C5:L20-L26 and C5:L53-C6:L13), and the plurality of island-shaped oxide layers (6) is covered with the one oxide layer (5) (as shown in Hosokawa Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the plurality of island like shaped oxide layers covered with the one oxide layer (in the manner of Hosokawa) in the device of Feng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have motivation to do so in order enlarge the contact area between the two oxide layers, resulting in improved carrier-injection ability (C9:L64 – C10:L27). The rejections have been updated accordingly below.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claim 1, it recites “one of the first oxide layer or the second oxide layer includes a plurality of island-shaped oxide layers, another one of the first oxide layer or the second oxide layer includes one oxide layer, and the plurality of island-shaped oxide layers is covered with the one oxide layer”. This is being interpreted with the definition of “another” being that of “used to refer to a different person or thing from one already mentioned or known about”, which is commensurate in scope with what is presented throughout the Application figures and specification, and does not encompass a situation wherein “the first oxide layer” can be both the “island-shaped oxide layers” and the “one oxide layer”, which is not supported by the instant disclosure.
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.
Claims 1, 14, 22, 48, 49, 52, and 54-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao-ming Feng et al. (CN 104218166 A; hereinafter Feng; translation with paragraph numbers of record) in view of Chishio Hosokawa et al. (US 6284393 B1; hereinafter Hosokawa).
PNG
media_image1.png
584
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Feng teaches a light-emitting element, comprising: an anode (Feng; Fig. 1; anode 2; ¶0045), a hole transport layer (Feng; Fig. 1; hole transport layer {HTL} 5; ¶0045), a light-emitting layer (Feng; Fig. 1; light-emitting layer {LEL} 6; ¶0045), an electron transport layer (Feng; Fig. 1; electron transport layer {ETL} 7; ¶0045), and a cathode (Feng; Fig. 1; cathode 9; ¶0045) in this stated order (as shown clearly in modified Feng Fig. 1); and
a first oxide layer (Feng; Fig. 1; first hole injection auxiliary layer 3; made of Ta2O5 {tantalum pentoxide} or TiO2 {titanium dioxide} which are oxides; ¶0052 and ¶0083 respectively) and a second oxide layer (Feng; Fig. 1; second hole injection auxiliary layer 4; made of NiO {nickel oxide} which is an oxide; ¶0053), that is in contact with the first oxide layer (3), disposed in this stated order from a side closer to the anode (2) between the anode (2) and the hole transport layer (5) (as shown in Feng Fig. 1) or between the electron transport layer (7) and the cathode (9),
wherein a density of oxygen atoms in the second oxide layer (4 is NiO with a known oxygen atom density of 0.0893 mol/cm3) is different from a density of oxygen atoms in the first oxide layer (3 may be Ta2O5 or TiO2 which have known oxygen densities of 0.0928 mol/cm3 and 0.1059 mol/cm3, respectively; which are both different than the density of the oxygen atoms in the second oxide layer 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
413
631
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Feng does not expressly disclose wherein one of the first oxide layer or the second oxide layer includes a plurality of island-shaped oxide layers, another one of the first oxide layer or the second oxide layer includes one oxide layer, and the plurality of island-shaped oxide layers is covered with the one oxide layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Hosokawa teaches (Hosokawa; Fig. 8) a light emitting element (Fig. 8) which includes a first oxide layer including a plurality of island-shaped oxide layers (Fig. 8; oxide layer 6 including a plurality of island shaped oxide layers; C5:L20-L26 and C8:L63-L65), a second oxide layer includes one oxide layer (Fig. 8; oxide layer 5 which is one oxide layer; C5:L20-L26 and C5:L53-C6:L13), and the plurality of island-shaped oxide layers (6) is covered with the one oxide layer (5) (as shown in Hosokawa Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the first or second oxide layers be a plurality of island like shaped oxide layers covered with the one oxide layer (in the manner of Hosokawa) in the device of Feng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have motivation to do so in order enlarge the contact area between the two oxide layers, resulting in improved carrier-injection ability (C9:L64 – C10:L27).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Feng teaches the light-emitting element according to claim 1, and wherein the first oxide layer (3) or the second oxide layer (4) is formed of an oxide in which a most abundant element other than oxygen is any one of Al, Ga, Ta, Zr, Hf, Mg, Ge, Si, Y, La, or Sr (3 may be Ta2O5).
Regarding Claim 22, modified Feng teaches the light-emitting element according to claim 1, and wherein the first oxide layer (3) and the second oxide layer (4) are disposed between the anode (2) and the hole transport layer (5) in this stated order from an anode side (as shown clearly in Feng Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 48, modified Feng teaches the light-emitting element according to claim 1, but do not expressly disclose further comprising: a third oxide layer and a fourth oxide layer, that is in contact with the third oxide layer, disposed in this stated order from the side closer to the anode (2) not between the anode (2) and the hole transport layer (5) and not between the electron transport layer (7) and the cathode (9), wherein a density of oxygen atoms in the fourth oxide layer is different from a density of oxygen atoms in the third oxide layer.
However, Feng establishes that the two oxide layers (3 and 4) are effective to provide an organic electroluminescent device with small driving current and high luminous efficiency (Feng; ¶0007-0008). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention was filed, to try duplicating the stack of oxides in additional locations in the device in order to determine if luminous efficiency increases further. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the oxide stack could be tried between the HTL (5) and the LEL (6) or between the LEL (6) and the ETL (7) in Feng Fig. 1. It would have been within the purview of the ordinarily skilled artisan to try this oxide stack in these locations with a reasonable chance of success at improving the luminous efficiency. Therefore, the third and fourth oxide layers (being duplicate from the first and second) would have different oxygen atom densities as in claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 49, modified Feng teaches the light-emitting element according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose further comprising: a third oxide layer and a fourth oxide layer, that is in contact with the third oxide layer, disposed in this stated order from the side closer to the anode (2) between the hole transport layer (5) and the light-emitting layer (6) or between the light-emitting layer (6) and the electron transport layer (7), wherein a density of oxygen atoms in the fourth oxide layer is different from a density of oxygen atoms in the third oxide layer.
However, Feng establishes that the two oxide layers (3 and 4) are effective to provide an organic electroluminescent device with small driving current and high luminous efficiency (Feng; ¶0007-0008). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention was filed, to try duplicating the stack of oxides in additional locations in the device in order to determine if luminous efficiency increases further. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the oxide stack could be tried between the HTL (5) and the LEL (6) or between the LEL (6) and the ETL (7) in Feng Fig. 1. It would have been within the purview of the ordinarily skilled artisan to try this oxide stack in these locations with a reasonable chance of success at improving the luminous efficiency. Therefore, the third and fourth oxide layers (being duplicate from the first and second) would have different oxygen atom densities as in claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 52, modified Feng teaches a light-emitting device, comprising: the light-emitting element according to claim 1. Feng and Hosokawa teach the light emitting element of claim 1 as rejected above, and ¶0007 of Feng describes it as an electroluminescent {light emitting} device.
Regarding Claim 54, modified Feng teaches the light-emitting element according to according to claim 1, wherein the first oxide layer (3) is formed into an island shape (as modified by Hosokawa) and is in contact with the anode (2), and the second oxide layer (4) is in contact with the anode (2) and the hole transport layer (5) (as modified by Hosokawa).
Regarding Claim 55, modified Feng teaches the light-emitting element according to claim 1, wherein the second oxide layer (4) is formed into an island shape and is in contact with the anode (2) (as modified by Hosokawa), and the first oxide layer (3) is in contact with the anode (2) and the hole transport layer (5) (as modified by Hosokawa).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng in view of Hosokawa and Koki Yano et al. (US 20080197344 A1; hereinafter Yano).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Feng teaches the light-emitting element according to claim 1, but is silent regarding wherein at least one of the first oxide layer (3) or the second oxide layer (4) includes a polycrystalline oxide at a contact surface between the first oxide layer and the second oxide layer.
However, Yano (¶0095-0098) teaches a semiconductor device that includes an oxide layer comprising the same elements (Yano; ¶0097) as in Feng and the instant application. Yano discloses in ¶0096-0097 a polycrystalline oxide is preferred over an amorphous oxide in order to control carrier density and carrier mobility while maintaining a high degree of reliability. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention was filed, to use the polycrystalline oxide state of Yano for either of the oxide layers of Feng in order to obtain the benefit made evident above.
Claims 20 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng in view of Hosokawa and Takao Someya et al. (US 20220069220 A1; hereinafter Someya).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Feng teaches the light-emitting element according to claim 1, but is silent regarding a total film thickness of the first oxide layer (3) and the second oxide layer (4) is from 0.4 nm to 5 nm.
However, in the same light emitting element field of endeavor, Someya teaches a similar light emitting element containing a cathode (Someya; Fig. 1; 2; ¶0148), oxide layers (Someya; Fig. 1; 3; ¶0150), an electron transport layer (Someya; Fig. 1; 5; ¶0151) a light emitting layer (Someya; Fig. 1; 6; ¶0152), a hole transport layer (Someya; Fig. 1; 7; ¶0153), oxide layer(s) (Someya; Fig. 1; 8; ¶0155/0128), and an anode (Someya; Fig. 1; 9; ¶0155). Someya teaches that the oxide layer may be a laminate of multiple oxide layers selected from the same oxides used in the instant application (Someya; ¶0065) with a thickness of 1nm to 1000nm which overlaps the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention was filed, to utilize the teachings of Someya to pick a small thickness of the oxide layers in the known device of Feng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have motivation to make this modification in order to provide a light emitting device with a comparable lifespan to existing electroluminescence devices while being thinner with excellent flexibility (Someya; ¶0010).
Regarding Claim 34, modified Feng teaches the light-emitting element according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the first oxide layer (3) and the second oxide layer (4) are disposed between the electron transport layer (7) and the cathode (9) in this stated order from an anode (2) side.
However, in the same light emitting element field of endeavor, Someya teaches a similar light emitting element containing a cathode (Someya; Fig. 1; 2; ¶0148), oxide layers (Someya; Fig. 1; 3; ¶0150; ¶0124), an electron transport layer (Someya; Fig. 1; 5; ¶0151) a light emitting layer (Someya; Fig. 1; 6; ¶0152), a hole transport layer (Someya; Fig. 1; 7; ¶0153), oxide layer(s) (Someya; Fig. 1; 8; ¶0155/0128), and an anode (Someya; Fig. 1; 9; ¶0155). Someya teaches that the oxide layer may be a laminate of multiple oxide layers selected from the same oxides used in the instant application (Someya; ¶0065). Someya teaches the oxide layers are between the cathode and the ETL. Someya also discloses that the oxide may be between the cathode and the light emitting layer, or between the anode and the light emitting layer (Someya; ¶0064). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention was filed, to include the oxide layers of Feng between the ETL and the cathode (as in Someya) in order to improve electron injection into the ETL while maintaining device thinness, lifetime, and improving device flexibility.
Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed orientation of “wherein the first oxide layer (3) and the second oxide layer (4) are disposed between the electron transport layer (7) and the cathode (9) in this order from the anode (2) side” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without the specific claimed orientation). Also, the applicant has not shown that the claimed orientation produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light emitting device by re-arranging the location of the oxide layers with a reasonable expectation of success to improve efficiency since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), see MPEP 2144.04 VI.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng in view of Hosokawa, NPL “Hole-transporting materials for organic light-emitting diodes: an overview” by Shahnawaz et al. (hereinafter Shahnawaz), and Yano.
Regarding Claim 29, modified Feng teaches the light-emitting element according to claim 22, wherein the hole transport layer (5) is in contact with the second oxide layer (4) (as shown in Feng; Fig. 1).
Feng does not expressly disclose wherein the hole transport layer is formed of an oxide. However, in the same field of endeavor, Shahnawaz teaches utilizing metal oxides as carrier transport layers (HTLs or ETLs) (Shahnawaz section 5.3) in an OLED because they are highly transparent in the visible spectrum, have robust film forming properties, have high carrier mobility, tunable energy-level alignment, and good stability. Shahnawaz teaches utilizing MoO3 (0.0979 O2 atom density), V2O5 (0.1448 O2 atom density), WO3 (0.0926 O2 atom density), or NiO (0.0893 O2 atom density). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention as filed, to use one of the oxides of Shahnawaz as the HTL of Feng in order to obtain the benefits described above.
Feng does not expressly disclose wherein at least at a contact surface between the hole transport layer (5) and the second oxide layer (4), at least one of the hole transport layer or the second oxide layer includes a polycrystalline oxide. However, Yano (¶0095-0098) teaches a semiconductor device that includes an oxide layer comprising the same elements (Yano; ¶0097) as in Feng and the instant application. Yano discloses in ¶0096-0097 a polycrystalline oxide is preferred over an amorphous oxide in order to control carrier density and carrier mobility while maintaining a high degree of reliability. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention was filed, to use the polycrystalline oxide state of Yano for the oxide layers of Feng in order to obtain the benefit made evident above.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng in view of Hosokawa and Jeong-Eun Won et al. (US 20210066544 A1; hereinafter Won).
Regarding Claim 30, modified Feng teaches the light-emitting element according to claim 22, and wherein the hole transport layer (5) is in contact with the second oxide layer (4) (as shown in Feng Fig. 1).
Feng does not expressly disclose wherein the hole transport layer (5) is formed of an oxide.
However, in the same light emitting element field of endeavor, Won teaches a similar device utilizing metal oxides in the HTL material, which include the same HTL materials used in Feng (Won ¶0146 and Feng ¶0055, 0071, 0086). Won lists examples of ZnO, TiO2, CoO, CuO, Cu2O, FeO, In2O3, MnO, NiO, PbO, SnOx, Cr2O3, v2O5, Ce2O3, MoO3, Bi2O3, ReO3 in ¶0148. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention as filed, to include the metal oxides of Won in the HTL of Feng in order to more efficiently inject holes into the emission layer (Won; ¶0149).
Feng modified by Won do not expressly disclose wherein a density of oxygen atoms in the hole transport layer is less than the density of oxygen atoms in the second oxide layer (4).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention was filed, to try the oxide materials of Won in one of three possible configurations for the density of oxygen atoms between the two layers, with a reasonable chance of success in improving the carrier injection efficiency. The three options are to have a HTL with a lower oxygen atom density, the same oxygen atom density, or a greater oxygen atom density than the second oxide layer. See MPEP 2143 I E.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng in view of Hosokawa, Won, and non-patent literature “Effects of oxygen content on the structural, optical, and electrical properties of NiO films fabricated by radio-frequency magnetron sputtering” by J.D. Hwang et al. published 12 September 2017 (hereinafter Hwang).
Regarding Claim 31, modified Feng teaches the light-emitting element according to claim 30, but do not expressly disclose wherein the density of oxygen atoms in the hole transport layer is from 50% to 95% of the density of oxygen atoms in the second oxide layer.
Although modified Feng teaches the general conditions of the claim, they are silent regarding this limitation. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention was filed, to select a material from the finite list of HTL materials of (Won; ¶0146) to optimize the density of oxygen atoms in the HTL in order to determine which material has the highest hole injection efficiency. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II A.
Furthermore, Hwang teaches in Fig. 5 and Fig. 7 that the oxygen percentage (density of oxygen atoms) in a metal oxide film directly affects the result-effective variables of bandgap, carrier mobility, carrier concentration, and resistivity of the film. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the oxygen content of the metal oxide film through routine experimentation to obtain the desired properties of the result-effective variables of Hwang (MPEP 2144.05 II. A.).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng in view of Hosokawa and Shahnawaz.
Regarding Claim 33, modified Feng teaches the light-emitting element according to claim 22, and wherein the hole transport layer (5) is in contact with the second oxide layer (4) (as shown in Feng Fig. 1).
Feng does not expressly disclose wherein the hole transport layer (5) is formed of an oxide, and a density of oxygen atoms in the hole transport layer is greater than the density of oxygen atoms in the second oxide layer (4) (which is NiO and has a 0.0893 O2 atom density).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Shahnawaz teaches utilizing metal oxides as carrier transport layers (HTLs or ETLs) (Shahnawaz section 5.3) in an OLED because they are highly transparent in the visible spectrum, have robust film forming properties, have high carrier mobility, tunable energy-level alignment, and good stability. Shahnawaz teaches utilizing MoO3 (0.0979 O2 atom density), V2O5 (0.1448 O2 atom density), WO3 (0.0926 O2 atom density), or NiO (0.0893 O2 atom density). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention as filed, to use one of the oxides that is different from the second oxide layer (NiO) of Shahnawaz as the HTL of Feng in order to obtain the benefits described above. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to not use the same NiO layer as the HTL, because otherwise the HTL would be eliminated. Therefore, any of the other three listed oxides as HTLs from Shahnawaz have a higher O2 density than the second oxide layer (4).
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng in view of Hosokawa; Someya, Won, and Yano.
Regarding Claim 41, modified Feng teaches the light-emitting element according to claim 34, and wherein the electron transport layer is in contact with the first oxide layer (as reasoned in the rejection of claim 34 above).
Modified Feng does not expressly disclose wherein the electron transport layer is formed of an oxide. However, in the same light emitting element field of endeavor, Won teaches a similar device utilizing metal oxides in the ETL material which include the same ETL materials used in Feng (Won ¶0142 and Feng ¶0008). Won lists examples of TiO2, ZnO, ZnMgO, ZnCaO, ZrO2, SnO2, SnMgO, WO3, Ta2O3, HfO3, Al2O3, BaTiO3, BaZrO3 in ¶0140. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention was filed, to include the metal oxides of Won in the ETL of Feng in order to more efficiently inject electrons into the emission layer.
Feng modified by (Someya and Won) do not expressly disclose wherein at least at a contact surface between the electron transport layer and the first oxide layer, at least one of the electron transport layer or the first oxide layer includes a polycrystalline oxide. However, Yano (¶0095-0098) teaches a semiconductor device that includes an oxide layer comprising the same elements (Yano; ¶0097) as in Feng and the instant application. Yano discloses in ¶0096-0097 a polycrystalline oxide is preferred over an amorphous oxide in order to control carrier density and carrier mobility, maintaining a high degree of reliability. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention was filed, to use the polycrystalline oxide state of Yano for the oxide layers of Feng in order to obtain the benefit made evident above.
Claims 42 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng in view of Hosokawa, Someya and Won.
Regarding Claim 42, modified Feng teaches the light-emitting element according to claim 34, but does not expressly disclose wherein the electron transport layer (ETL) (7) is formed of an oxide.
However, in the same light emitting element field of endeavor, Won teaches a similar device utilizing metal oxides in the ETL material which include the same ETL materials used in Feng (Won ¶0142 and Feng ¶0008). Won lists examples of TiO2, ZnO, ZnMgO, ZnCaO, ZrO2, SnO2, SnMgO, WO3, Ta2O3, HfO3, Al2O3, BaTiO3, BaZrO3 in ¶0140. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention as filed, to include the metal oxides of Won in the ETL of Feng in order to more efficiently inject electrons into the emission layer.
Modified Feng does not expressly disclose wherein a density of oxygen atoms in the first oxide layer is less than the density of oxygen atoms in the ETL.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention was filed, to try the oxide materials of Won in one of three possible configurations for the density of oxygen atoms between the two layers, with a reasonable chance of success in improving the carrier injection efficiency. The three options are to have an ETL with a lower oxygen atom density, the same oxygen atom density, or a greater oxygen atom density than the first oxide layer. See MPEP 2143 I E.
Modified Feng does not expressly disclose wherein the electron transport layer (7) is in contact with the first oxide layer. Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed orientation of “wherein electron transport layer (7) is in contact with the first oxide layer” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without the specific claimed orientation). Also, the applicant has not shown that the claimed orientation produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light emitting device by re-arranging the location of the oxide layers with a reasonable expectation of success in improving efficiency since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), see MPEP 2144.04 VI.
Regarding Claim 43, modified Feng teaches the light-emitting element according to claim 42, but are silent regarding wherein the density of oxygen atoms in the first oxide layer is from 50% to 95% of the density of oxygen atoms in the electron transport layer.
Although modified Feng teaches the general conditions of the claim, it is silent regarding this limitation. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention was filed, to select a material from the finite list of ETL materials of (Won; ¶0140) to optimize the density of oxygen atoms in the ETL in order to determine which material has the highest electron injection efficiency. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II A.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng in view of Hosokawa, Someya, Won, and Hwang.
Regarding Claim 45, modified Feng teaches the light-emitting element according to claim 34, but do not expressly disclose wherein the electron transport layer is in contact with the first oxide layer. Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed orientation of “wherein electron transport layer (7) is in contact with the first oxide layer” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without the specific claimed orientation). Also, the Applicant has not shown that the claimed orientation produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light emitting device by re-arranging the location of the oxide layers with a reasonable expectation of success in improving efficiency since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), see MPEP 2144.04 VI.
Modified Feng does not expressly disclose wherein the electron transport layer is formed of an oxide. However, in the same light emitting element field of endeavor, Won teaches a similar device utilizing metal oxides in the ETL material which include the same ETL materials used in Feng (Won ¶0142 and Feng ¶0008). Won lists examples of TiO2, ZnO, ZnMgO, ZnCaO, ZrO2, SnO2, SnMgO, WO3, Ta2O3, HfO3, Al2O3, BaTiO3, BaZrO3 in ¶0140. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention as filed, to include the metal oxides of Won in the ETL of Feng in order to more efficiently inject electrons into the emission layer.
Modified Feng does not expressly disclose wherein the density of oxygen atoms in the first oxide layer is greater than the density of oxygen atoms in the electron transport layer.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention was filed, to try the oxide materials of Someya/Won in one of three possible configurations for the density of oxygen atoms between the two layers, with a reasonable chance of success in improving the carrier injection efficiency. The three options are to have an ETL with a lower oxygen atom density, the same oxygen atom density, or a greater oxygen atom density than the first oxide layer. See MPEP 2143 I E.
Furthermore, in the same field of endeavor Hwang teaches in Fig. 5 and Fig. 7 that the oxygen percentage (density of oxygen atoms) in a metal oxide film directly affects the result-effective variables of bandgap, carrier mobility, carrier concentration, and resistivity of the film. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the oxygen content of the metal oxide film through routine experimentation to obtain the desired properties of the result-effective variables of Hwang (MPEP 2144.05 II. A.).
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng in view of Hosokawa and Hwang.
Regarding Claim 53, modified Feng teaches the light-emitting element according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose with sufficient specificity wherein the density of oxygen atoms in the second oxide layer is 50% or more the density of oxygen atoms in the first oxide layer and 80% or less than the density of oxygen atoms in the first oxide layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Hwang teaches in Fig. 5 and Fig. 7 that the oxygen percentage (density of oxygen atoms) in a NiO film directly affects the result-effective variables of bandgap, carrier mobility, carrier concentration, and resistivity of the film. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the oxygen content of the NiO film through routine experimentation to obtain the desired properties of the result-effective variables of Hwang (MPEP 2144.05 II. A.).
Conclusion
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 NATHAN PRIDEMORE whose telephone number is (703)756-4640. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:00pm 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, JULIO MALDONADO can be reached at (571) 272-1864. 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.
NATHAN PRIDEMORE
Examiner
Art Unit 2898
/NATHAN PRIDEMORE/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898