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 08/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach the amended limitations.
The examiner respectfully submits that Zhou expressly teaches that the light-emitting layer may comprise at least NPB ([0034]). The examiner further reiterates that products of identical structure or chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977), and In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2112.01. Therefore the limitations directed to the structural performance properties of the light-emitting sublayer are necessarily present in the prior art, even though these properties are not specifically discussed. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
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.
Claims 1 – 3, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US 2015/0028311).
Regarding claim 1, Zhou teaches (FIG. 1):
A display panel, comprising:
a substrate (10), a first electrode (ITO) disposed on the substrate;
a light-emitting layer disposed on a surface of the first electrode away from the substrate and comprising a hole injection sublayer (20), a hole transport sublayer (30), a light- emitting sublayer (50), an electron transport sublayer (60), and an electron injection sublayer (70) stacked in sequence; and
a second electrode (80) disposed on a surface of the light-emitting layer away from the substrate (FIG. 1);
wherein a compressibility parameter of the light-emitting sublayer is greater than or equal to a first threshold, and the compressibility parameter is determined by an amount of deformation under unit force of the light-emitting sublayer (Zhou teaches the same materials as used in the instant application, deposited in the same methods);
wherein the first threshold is -1.7, and the compressibility parameter of the light-emitting sublayer is less than 0 (inherent properties of materials are inseparable from the chemical composition).
wherein organic light-emitting materials of the light-emitting sublayer comprise at least one of NPB, DCB, CDBP, CBPE, CzC and BCPPA ([0034]);
wherein when the display panel is powered on, a ratio of an amount of thickness expansion of the light-emitting sublayer to an original thickness of the light- emitting sublayer is less than or equal to 5%; or, when the light-emitting sublayer is heated, a ratio of an amount of thickness expansion of the light-emitting sublayer to an original thickness of the light-emitting sublayer is less than or equal to 10% (Zhou teaches identical materials, and the performance characteristics of identical materials are inherent).
Zhou teaches multiple examples of light emitting structures having electron transport layers ranging in thickness from 20 nm to 80 nm depending on the final materials selection of each defined example, but fails to expressly disclose “a thickness of the electron transport layer is 35 nm”.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the electron transport layer of whatever thickness was optimal for the selected material, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See also In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Also it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc . v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989), and In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also MPEP § 716.07: “It is to be presumed also that skilled workers would as a matter of course, if they do not immediately obtain desired results, make certain experiments and adaptations, within the skill of the competent worker. The failures of experimenters who have no interest in succeeding should not be accorded great weight. In re Michalek, 162 F.2d 229, 232 (CCPA 1947); In re Reid, 179 F.2d 998, 1002 (CCPA 1950).”
The examiner notes that any material inherently has a “compressibility parameter” greater than or equal to an arbitrary threshold. The method of measuring an inherent property does not provide patentable weight to any device claims. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally of functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The applicant is respectfully advised that products of identical structure or chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977), and In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2112.01.
Regarding claim 2, Zhou inherently teaches the display panel having the measured properties:
The display panel according to claim 1, wherein the compressibility parameter is determined by an amount of thickness deformation of a force-bearing part of the light-emitting sublayer in a thickness direction of the light-emitting sublayer under unit force (Zhou teaches the same materials as used in the instant application, deposited in the same method).
The examiner notes that any material inherently has a “compressibility parameter” greater than or equal to an arbitrary threshold. The method of measuring the property does not provide patentable weight to the device. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally of functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The applicant is respectfully advised that products of identical structure or chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977), and In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2112.01.
Regarding claim 3, Zhou inherently teaches the display panel having the measured properties:
The display panel according to claim 2, wherein the compressibility parameter is calculated by the following formula:
X=ΔF/ΔH,
wherein ΔF is a difference between different forces in the thickness direction of the light-emitting sublayer, and AH is a thickness difference of the force- bearing part of the light-emitting sublayer under different forces.
The examiner notes that any material inherently has a “compressibility parameter” greater than or equal to an arbitrary threshold. The method of measuring the property does not provide patentable weight to the device. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally of functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The applicant is respectfully advised that products of identical structure or chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.In re Best, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977), and In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2112.01.
Regarding claim 14, Zhou teaches ([0006]):
The display panel according to claim 1, wherein the first electrode is an anode electrode, and the second electrode is a cathode electrode.
Claims 9 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ma (US 2013/0069044).
Regarding claim 9, Zhou fails to expressly disclose:
The display panel according to claim 1, wherein energy levels of highest occupied orbitals of the hole transport sublayer, the light-emitting sublayer, and the electron transport sublayer decrease sequentially, and energy levels of lowest unoccupied orbitals of the hole transport sublayer, the light-emitting sublayer, and the electron transport sublayer decrease sequentially.
However, Ma teaches organic LED structures having enhanced efficiency by adjusting the HOMO and LUMO relationships between the HTL, EML, and ETL in various combinations, including decreasing sequentially (FIG. 4, 7) with differences less than 0.2 eV ([0027] – [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide materials having HOMO and LUMO relationships as disclosed by Ma in the display panel of Zhou for the predictable advantage of enabling enhanced efficiency, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See also In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc . v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989), and In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also MPEP § 716.07: “It is to be presumed also that skilled workers would as a matter of course, if they do not immediately obtain desired results, make certain experiments and adaptations, within the skill of the competent worker. The failures of experimenters who have no interest in succeeding should not be accorded great weight. In re Michalek, 162 F.2d 229, 232 (CCPA 1947); In re Reid, 179 F.2d 998, 1002 (CCPA 1950).”
Applicant can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness based on overlapping ranges by showing unexpected results or the criticality of the claimed range. "The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims . . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range." In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 716.02 - § 716.02(g) for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results.
“Where the unexpected properties of a claimed invention are not shown to have a significance equal to or greater than the expected properties, the evidence of unexpected properties may not be sufficient to rebut the evidence of obviousness.” In re Nolan, 553 F.2d 1261, 1267, 193 USPQ 641, 645 (CCPA 1977)
"Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention, just as unexpected results are evidence of unobviousness thereof." In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 538, 152 USPQ 602, 604 (CCPA 1967).
Regarding claim 10, Zhou fails to expressly disclose:
The display panel according to claim 9, wherein a difference between the energy levels of the highest occupied orbitals of the hole transport sublayer and the light-emitting sublayer is less than or equal to 0.2 eV, and a difference between the energy levels of the lowest unoccupied orbitals of the electron transport sublayer and the light-emitting sublayer is less than or equal to 0.2 eV.
However, Ma teaches organic LED structures having enhanced efficiency by adjusting the HOMO and LUMO relationships between the HTL, EML, and ETL in various combinations, including decreasing sequentially (FIG. 4, 7) with differences less than 0.2 eV ([0027] – [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide materials having HOMO and LUMO relationships as disclosed by Ma in the display panel of Zhou for the predictable advantage of enabling enhanced efficiency, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See also In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc . v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989), and In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also MPEP § 716.07: “It is to be presumed also that skilled workers would as a matter of course, if they do not immediately obtain desired results, make certain experiments and adaptations, within the skill of the competent worker. The failures of experimenters who have no interest in succeeding should not be accorded great weight. In re Michalek, 162 F.2d 229, 232 (CCPA 1947); In re Reid, 179 F.2d 998, 1002 (CCPA 1950).”
Applicant can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness based on overlapping ranges by showing unexpected results or the criticality of the claimed range. "The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims . . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range." In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 716.02 - § 716.02(g) for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results.
“Where the unexpected properties of a claimed invention are not shown to have a significance equal to or greater than the expected properties, the evidence of unexpected properties may not be sufficient to rebut the evidence of obviousness.” In re Nolan, 553 F.2d 1261, 1267, 193 USPQ 641, 645 (CCPA 1977)
"Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention, just as unexpected results are evidence of unobviousness thereof." In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 538, 152 USPQ 602, 604 (CCPA 1967).
Claims 11 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lim et al. (US 2020/0152902).
Regarding claim 11, Zhou fails to expressly disclose:
The display panel according to claim 1, wherein the light-emitting sublayer comprises a blue phosphorescent light-emitting material or a blue fluorescent light-emitting material.
However, Lim teaches the same materials and deposition process as Zhou, including doping the light-emitting layer with different phosphorescence-emitting materials so that blue, red, and green pixels are enabled.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the well-known doping process of Lim in the organic LED of Zhou for the predictable benefit of enabling multiple color pixels in a display substrate.
Regarding claim 12, Zhou fails to expressly disclose:
The display panel according to claim 1, wherein the light-emitting sublayer comprises a red phosphorescent light-emitting material or a red fluorescent light-emitting material.
However, Lim teaches the same materials and deposition process as Zhou, including doping the light-emitting layer with different phosphorescence-emitting materials so that blue, red, and green pixels are enabled.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the well-known doping process of Lim in the organic LED of Zhou for the predictable benefit of enabling multiple color pixels in a display substrate.
Regarding claim 13, Zhou fails to expressly disclose:
The display panel according to claim 1, wherein the light-emitting sublayer comprises a green phosphorescent light-emitting material or a green fluorescent light-emitting material.
However, Lim teaches the same materials and deposition process as Zhou, including doping the light-emitting layer with different phosphorescence-emitting materials so that blue, red, and green pixels are enabled.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the well-known doping process of Lim in the organic LED of Zhou for the predictable benefit of enabling multiple color pixels in a display substrate.
Conclusion
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 CORY W ESKRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)272-0543. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9 - 5.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/CORY W ESKRIDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624