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 Amendment
The response filed 08/28/2025 is accepted, in which, independent claim 1 is amended. Claims 1-5, 10-13, and 16 await an action on the merits as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding amended claim 1, on page 2 of the response, Applicant argues,
"By the present Amendment and Response, Applicant has amended independent claim 1 to recite, inter alia: [...] the plurality of insulator layers contains a polyimide, a glass-epoxy multilayer stack, dimethyl silicone resin, or at least one kind of insulator selected from a group of Al203, SiN, SiON, AION, and TiO.
Applicant respectfully submits that Benzie, Hermes, Hosokawa, Takahashi, Lee, Yamazaki, Dasgupta, and Forrest, either singly or in any combination thereof, fail to teach, disclose, or suggest all the features recited in amended claim 1, including, at least, the above recited features. For example, Benzie, Hermes, Hosokawa, Takahashi, Lee, Yamazaki, Dasgupta, and Forrest, either singly or in any combination thereof, do not disclose, teach, or suggest, at least, “the plurality of insulator layers contains a polyimide, a glass-epoxy multilayer stack, dimethyl silicone resin, or at least one kind of insulator selected from a group of Al2O3, SiN, SiON, ALON, and TiO2,” as recited in amended claim 1."
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed in the non-final rejection of 06/20/2025, Hosokawa, as described by Hermes, provides motivation to increase electron injection efficiency by including islands in the cathode. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to try different materials as the islands, and since the floating conductors of Hosokawa are considered non-conductive by Hermes, trying insulative materials for the islands would be obvious.
Hermes discloses insulative islands, comprised of insulators (Hermes, [0109]), which are embedded in the cathode in Fig 7. While the purpose of the insulator layers in Hermes is to prevent electrical shorts, [0109], a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Hermes in view of Hosokawa and found it obvious to try the islands of Hosokawa made from insulative materials.
Furthermore, the list of insulators in amended claim 1 are well known in the art. The broad inclusion of these well-known insulators demonstrates that the materials for the insulative islands is not critical to the light-emitting element. Section 2144.05.II.B states, "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense."
The motivation to increase electron injection efficiency by including islands in the cathode by Hermes would make it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to try different materials as the islands, and since the floating conductors of Hosokawa are considered non-conductive by Hermes, trying the listed insulative materials for the islands would be obvious when iterating to determine the best material from which to construct the islands in the cathode.
The argument regarding amended claim 1 is overcome.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benzie (US 2020/0328380 A1) in view of Takahashi (US 2007/0228368 A1), in view of Hermes (US 20130214255 A1), and further in view of Hosokawa (US 6284393 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Benzie teaches a light-emitting element (200, Fig 2), comprising:
an anode (204), a light-emitting layer (214), a layer capable of transporting electrons (216), and a cathode (208), all of which are provided in a stated order (shown in an order); and
an insulator layer (218; silicon oxide, [0049]) provided in contact with (shown in contact), and at least partially between (shown partially between), the layer capable of transporting the electrons (216) and the cathode (208),
wherein the insulator layer (218) includes a plurality of insulator layers (218-subpart-1; The plurality of insulator layers 218 of Benzie can be divided into subparts by separating the spheres along the center horizontally where layer 216 and 208 meet. Subpart-1 would be the top half of the spheres, while subpart-2 would be the bottom half.) shaped into islands (shown as hemispheres, which appear as islands in plan view) and spaced apart from one another (shown spaced apart)
the plurality of insulator layers (218-subpart-1) … and is provided … in (shown in) the cathode (208).
Benzie fails to explicitly teach the plurality of insulator layers is distributed non-uniformly in a plan view and is provided only in the cathode, wherein the plurality of insulator layers contains a polyimide, a glass-epoxy multilayer stack, dimethyl silicone resin, or at least one kind of insulator selected from a group of A1203, SiN, SiON, AlON, and TiO2.
However, Takahashi teaches the insulator layers (12, Fig 5) are distributed non-uniformly in a plan view (shown in non-uniform distribution).
Additionally, Hermes teaches a patterned insulator between ETL and cathode and cites Hosokawa which has a very similar island structure to increase electron injection efficiency. Hosokawa’s islands are comprised of a conductor, not an insulator.
However, in the invention summary paragraph [0018], Hermes cites Hosokawa and goes on to say, “Accordingly, although the electron-injection layer is a patterned layer formed of an electrically conductive-material, the electron-injection layer can not be considered as an electrically conductive layer due to its partitioning in island like zones.” Please see the figures below for comparison.
PNG
media_image1.png
329
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
When looking at the figures, Hosokawa suggests island formations of insulators located only in the cathode and while the islands in Hosokawa are conductive, since they are floating, they do not serve a conductive purpose but instead have the purpose of an increase in electron injection efficiency. As being dispersed in that condition, the contact area between the granular metals or compounds and the organic compound layer is enlarged, resulting in that the electron injecting ability of the electron injection zone is enhanced (Hosokawa, [Col 10, Ln 16-19]).
Therefore, the suggestion of Hosokawa, as described by Hermes, provides motivation to increase electron injection efficiency by including islands in the cathode. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to try different materials as the islands, and since the floating conductors of Hosokawa are considered non-conductive by Hermes, trying insulative materials for the islands would be obvious.
As discussed above, the list of insulators in amended claim 1 are well known in the art. The broad inclusion of these well-known insulators demonstrates that the materials for the insulative islands is not critical to the light-emitting element. Section 2144.05.II.B states, "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense."
The motivation to increase electron injection efficiency by including islands in the cathode by Hosokawa would make it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to try different materials as the islands, and since the floating conductors of Hosokawa are considered non-conductive by Hermes, trying the listed insulative materials for the islands would be obvious when iterating to determine the best material from which to construct the islands in the cathode.
Benzie, Takahashi, Hermes, and Hosokawa are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are from the same field of endeavor of semiconductor devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Benzie with the features of Takahashi to create the insulator layers are distributed non-uniformly in a plan view to provide excellent in production suitability and give a uniform in-plane output (Takahashi, [0009]) and with the features of Hosokawa as described by Hermes to provide the plurality of insulator layers provided only in the cathode, wherein the plurality of insulator layers contains a polyimide, a glass-epoxy multilayer stack, dimethyl silicone resin, or at least one kind of insulator selected from a group of A1203, SiN, SiON, AlON, and TiO2 so the device has a good electrical conductivity, while on the other hand has a high transmission for radiation (Hermes, [0008]) and electron injecting ability of the electron injection zone is enhanced (Hosokawa, [Col 10, Ln 16-19]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Benzie, Takahashi, Hermes, and Hosokawa discloses the light-emitting element of claim 1. Benzie teaches the plurality of insulator layers (218-subpart-1, Fig 2) and the light-emitting element (200).
Takahashi goes on to teach wherein a density of which the plurality of insulator layers is arranged is higher in an outer periphery (insulator 12 shown with higher density in outer periphery, Fig 5) than in a center of a light-emission region (area between 3a and 3b, shown as 6 in Fig 1A) of the light-emitting element.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Benzie, Takahashi, Hermes, and Hosokawa discloses the light-emitting element of claim 10. Benzie teaches the insulator layer (218, Fig 2).
Takahashi goes on to teach wherein the center of the light-emission region (area between 3a and 3b, Fig 5; shown as 6 in Fig 1A) is not provided (shown not provided in center) with the insulator layer.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Benzie, Takahashi, Hermes, and Hosokawa discloses the light-emitting element of claim 10. Takahashi teaches the light-emission region (area between 3a and 3b, Fig 5; shown as 6 in Fig 1A).
Benzie goes on to teach wherein the light-emission region of the light-emitting element (200, Fig 2) has an end overlapping (emission region would be above emission layer 214, which has ends overlapping 218a and 218d) the plurality of insulator layers (218-subpart-1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Benzie, Takahashi, Hermes, and Hosokawa discloses the light-emitting element of claim 1. Benzie goes on to teach wherein the layer capable of transporting the electrons (216, Fig 2) is provided in contact (shown in contact) with the cathode (208).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benzie (US 2020/0328380 A1), in view of Takahashi (US 2007/0228368 A1), in view of Hermes (US 20130214255 A1), in view of Hosokawa (US 6284393 B1), and further in view of Lee (US 20090021159 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the combination of Benzie, Takahashi, Hermes, and Hosokawa discloses the light-emitting element of claim 1. Benzie teaches the insulator layer (218, Fig 2), but the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the insulator layer has a bandgap of 5 eV or higher and 10eV or lower and wherein the insulator layer has a bandgap of 8eV or higher.
However, Lee teaches the insulator layer has a band gap of 9 eV, [0024].
Therefore, the combination of Benzie, Takahashi, Hermes, Hosokawa, and Lee discloses wherein the insulator layer has a bandgap of 5 eV or higher and 10eV or lower and wherein the insulator layer has a bandgap of 8eV or higher.
Benzie, Takahashi, Hermes, Hosokawa, and Lee are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are from the same field of endeavor of semiconductor devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Benzie, Takahashi, Hermes, and Hosokawa with the features of Lee to create the insulator layer has a bandgap of 5 eV or higher and 10eV or lower and has a bandgap of 8eV or higher which shows excellent electron injecting and hole locking effects, and correspondingly excellent efficiency, luminance, life-time characteristics, or the like (Lee, [0009]).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benzie (US 2020/0328380 A1), in view of Takahashi (US 2007/0228368 A1), in view of Hermes (US 20130214255 A1), in view of Hosokawa (US 6284393 B1), and further in view of Yamazaki (US 2011/0240992 Al).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the combination of Benzie, Takahashi, Hermes, and Hosokawa discloses the light-emitting element of claim 1. Benzie teaches the insulator layer (218, Fig 2), but the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the insulator layer has a bandgap of 5 eV or higher and 10eV or lower and wherein the insulator layer has a bandgap of 8eV or higher.
However, Yamazaki teaches the insulator layer (silicon dioxide) has a band gap of 9 eV, [0058].
Therefore, the combination of Benzie, Takahashi, Hermes, Hosokawa, and Yamazaki discloses wherein the insulator layer has a bandgap of 5 eV or higher and 10eV or lower and wherein the insulator layer has a bandgap of 8eV or higher.
Benzie, Takahashi, Hermes, Hosokawa, and Yamazaki are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are from the same field of endeavor of semiconductor devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Benzie, Takahashi, Hermes, and Hosokawa with the features of Yamazaki to create the insulator layer has a bandgap of 5 eV or higher and 10eV or lower and has a bandgap of 8eV or higher which helps suppress deterioration of electric characteristics (Yamazaki, [0019]).
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benzie (US 2020/0328380 A1), in view of Takahashi (US 2007/0228368 A1), in view of Hermes (US 20130214255 A1), in view of Hosokawa (US 6284393 B1), and further in view of Dasgupta (6146939).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, the combination of Benzie, Takahashi, Hermes, and Hosokawa discloses the light-emitting element of claim 1. Benzie teaches the insulator layer (218, Fig 2), but the combination fails to explicitly teach either the insulator layer has a relative permittivity of 20 or lower nor the insulator layer has a relative permittivity of 2 or higher and 50 or lower.
However, Dasgupta teaches silicon dioxide has a permittivity of 3.54E-11 to 4.43E-11 F/m [Col 1, Ln 35-36], which means its relative permittivity is between 4 and 5. It is well known vacuum permittivity is 8.854E-12 F/m. Therefore, the combination of Benzie, Takahashi, Hermes, Hosokawa, and Dasgupta discloses the limitations of claims 4 and 16.
Benzie, Takahashi, Hermes, Hosokawa, and Dasgupta are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are from the same field of endeavor of semiconductor devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Benzie, Takahashi, Hermes, and Hosokawa, with the features of Dasgupta to create the insulator layer has a relative permittivity of 20 or lower and the insulator layer has a relative permittivity of 2 or higher and 50 or lower which will allow insulating layers to electrically isolate each of the conductive layers from each other (Dasgupta, [abstract]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benzie (US 2020/0328380 A1), in view of Takahashi (US 2007/0228368 A1), in view of Hermes (US 20130214255 A1), in view of Hosokawa (US 6284393 B1), and further in view of Forrest (US 2021/0057661 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Benzie, Takahashi, Hermes, and Hosokawa discloses the light-emitting element of claim 1. Benzie teaches the insulator layer (218, Fig 2), but the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the insulator layer has a thickness of 0.1 to 2 nm.
However, Forrest teaches wherein the insulator layer (110, Fig 1A) has a thickness of 0.1 to 2 nm (0.1 nm, [0132]).
Benzie, Takahashi, Hermes, Hosokawa, and Forrest are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are from the same field of endeavor of semiconductor devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Benzie, Takahashi, Hermes, and Hosokawa with the features of Forrest to create the insulator layer has a thickness of 0.1 to 2 nm which may be advantageous in balancing the current (Forrest, [0191]).
Conclusion
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Choi (US 20170237025 A1) - insulator islands not in EML.
Su (US 20100259467 A1) - insulator islands in peripheral region.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeremy D Watts whose telephone number is (703)756-1055. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 8:00am-4:30pm, F 8:00-3pm 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, Chad Dicke can be reached at (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.
/JEREMY DANIEL WATTS/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897