Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed 09/28/2025 (“A...”), in which: claims 1, 3, and 6 are amended; claims 2 and 5 are cancelled; new claims 12 – 17 are added; and the rejection of the claims are traversed. Claims 1, 3, 6 – 10, and 12 – 17 are currently pending an Office action on the merits as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/28/2025 (‘REM’) with respect to claims 1, 3, 6 – 10, and 12 – 17 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 13 states, “wherein the second common layer is a hole injection layer.” The instant specification only specifies that the second common layer is a hole transport layer (instant [0039]). It is the examiner’s understanding that applicant intends to claim, “wherein the second common layer is a hole transport layer.” Thus, examiner will interpret claim 13 to instead claim, “wherein the second common layer is a hole transport layer.”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 states, “wherein the second common layer is a hole injection layer.” The instant specification only specifies that the second common layer is a hole transport layer (instant [0039]). Further, the invention as filed permits the combination of the first common layer and the second common layer, wherein the first common layer is already described (instant [0037]) and claimed (instant claim 12) to be a hole injection layer. It is the examiner’s understanding that applicant intends to claim 13 to state, “wherein the second common layer is a hole transport layer.” Thus, examiner will interpret claim 13 to instead claim, “wherein the second common layer is a hole transport layer.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35
U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1, 3, 6 – 8, and 12 - 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon et al. (US 20200035951 A1) and further in view of Shin et al. (US 20230157129 A1), Wu et al. (CN 113571656 A), Kuo et al. (US 20200266372 A1), and Chen et al. (US 20220367826 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Cheon teaches a display panel, comprising:
a plurality of spaced sub-pixel areas (Fig. 2 shows a plurality of pixels 22 that each contain a color pattern (Fig. 6A), wherein the examiner is interpreting the distinct color emitting regions, e.g., RBG, that form the color pattern to be sub-pixels; such that each pixel contain a plurality of sub-pixels and, therefore, the plurality of pixels are interpreted as a plurality of spaced sub-pixel areas. Also see [0033]) and a blocking region (Fig. 10; examiner is interpreting the spaced spanned by the pixel defining layer (PDL) 43 to be a blocking region) located between the plurality of sub-pixel areas (Fig. 10), wherein each of the plurality of sub-pixel areas comprises a first sub-pixel area (Fig. 6A; green display region G ([0046]). Further, the pixels 22-1 and 22-2 may be representative of Red, Blue, or Green colored pixels ([0046])), [[and]] a second sub-pixel area (Fig. 6A; red display region R ([0046]). Further, the pixels 22-1 and 22-2 may be representative of Red, Blue, or Green colored pixels ([0046])) and a third sub-pixel area (Fig. 6A; blue display region B ([0046]). Further, the pixels 22-1 and 22-2 may be representative of Red, Blue, or Green colored pixels ([0046])); and
wherein the display panel comprises:
a substrate (substrate layer 26. See [0032]); [[and]]
a light-emitting layer (Fig. 10; emissive layer EML-1) arranged on a side of the substrate (Fig. 10), wherein the light-emitting layer comprises:
a first electron blocking layer (Fig. 10; common EBL 47) arranged on the substrate (Fig. 10) and located in the first sub-pixel area (Fig. 10; common EBL 47 in pixel 22-1), the second sub-pixel area (Fig. 10; common EBL 47 in pixel 22-2) and the blocking region between the first sub-pixel area and the second sub-pixel area (Fig. 10; common EBL 47 over pixel defining layer (PDL) 43); and …
a shielding layer (Fig. 10; reflector layer 70) disposed between the substrate and the first electron blocking layer (Fig. 10);
wherein the shielding layer comprises a first shielding part (Fig. 10; section of reflector layer 70 in pixel 22-1) corresponding to the first sub-pixel area (Fig. 10) and a second shielding part (Cheon: Fig. 10; section of reflector layer 70 in pixel 22-2) corresponding to the second sub-pixel area (Fig. 10), and a first gap (Cheon: Fig. 10; a gap between the first and second shielding parts) exists between the adjacent first shielding part and the second shielding part (Fig. 10); …
materials and thicknesses of the first electron blocking layer in the first sub-pixel area, the second sub-pixel area and the blocking region between the first sub- pixel area and the second sub-pixel area are the same (Fig. 10 of Cheon shows a constant uniformity for the thickness of the electron blocking layer across sub-pixel areas and the block region. See [0058]);
the first electron blocking layer located in the first sub-pixel area and the blocking region comprises the same multiple elements (Cheon teaches in [0058] that common EBL layer 47′ may be formed simultaneously over pixels 22-1 and 22-2 using the same material with the same thickness), …
the first electron blocking layer located in the second sub-pixel area and the blocking region comprises the same multiple elements (Cheon teaches in [0058] that common EBL layer 47′ may be formed simultaneously over pixels 22-1 and 22-2 using the same material with the same thickness), …
However, Cheon remains silent on a display panel further including:
… a second electron blocking layer arranged on the substrate and located in the third sub-pixel area; and …
wherein a hole mobility of the material of the first electron blocking layer located in the first sub-pixel area is greater than a hole mobility of the material of the first electron blocking layer corresponding to the first gap; and /or
a hole mobility of the material of the first electron blocking layer located in the second sub-pixel area is greater than a hole mobility of the material of the first electron blocking layer corresponding to the first gap;
wherein a second gap exists between the second electron blocking layer and the first electron blocking layer; and
a hole mobility of a material of the second electron blocking layer in the third sub- pixel area is greater than the hole mobility of the material of at least a part of the first electron blocking layer located in the blocking region;
… molecules, of the first electron blocking layer, located in the first sub-pixel area are greater in size than molecules, of the first electron blocking layer, located in the blocking region;
… molecules, of the first electron blocking layer, located in the second sub-pixel area are greater in size than molecules, of the first electron blocking layer, located in the blocking region; …
wherein a hole mobility of a material of the first electron blocking layer located in the first sub-pixel area is greater than a hole mobility of the material of at least a part of the first electron blocking layer located in the blocking region; and /or
a hole mobility of the material of the first electron blocking layer located in the second sub-pixel area is greater than a hole mobility of the material of at least a part of the first electron blocking layer located in the blocking region;
wherein the first shielding part is arranged in positional correspondence with the third sub-pixel area, the blocking region between the third sub-pixel area and the first sub-pixel area, and the blocking region between the second sub-pixel area and the third sub-pixel area.
However, other embodiments within Cheon may be combined ([0064]) to yield the display panel including:
… a second electron blocking layer arranged on the substrate and located in the third sub-pixel area; and …
wherein a second gap exists between the second electron blocking layer and the first electron blocking layer; and
another shielding part is arranged in positional correspondence with the third sub-pixel area, the blocking region between the third sub-pixel area and the first sub-pixel area, and the blocking region between the second sub-pixel area and the third sub-pixel area.
Cheon discloses lines 600, 602, and 604 in Fig. 6A, which shows cross-sections of adjacent pixels of the display panel ([0046]). Further, Fig. 7 shows a cross section which may be any one of the lines 600, 602, or 604 ([0046]). For example, Fig. 7 may be the line 604 that crosses the first sub-pixel area and the third sub-pixel area; or Fig. 7 may be the line 602 that crosses the second sub-pixel area and the third sub-pixel area. With this understanding, the first electron blocking layer EBL-1 in Fig. 7 may be considered analogous to the common electron blocking layer (traversing between the red and green sub-pixel area, i.e., between the first sub-pixel area and the second sub-pixel area), and the second electron blocking layer EBL-2 may be analogues to the instant second electron blocking layer over the third sub-pixel area. Thus, Cheon’s embodiment shown in Fig. 7 and 10 may be combined into a display panel to yield the display panel wherein a second electron blocking layer (Fig. 7; second electron blocking layer EBL-2) arranged on the substrate and located in the third sub-pixel area; and wherein a second gap (Fig. 7 shows a gap between the first electron blocking layer EBL-1 and the second electron blocking layer EBL-2) exists between the second electron blocking layer and the first electron blocking layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Cheon’s display panel to include an second electron blocking layer in a higher energy consuming pixel, e.g., a blue pixel, to satisfy the energy requirements of the display panel, because such a modification is the result of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. More specifically, Cheon’s adjacent sub-pixel structure in Fig. 7 permits a pixel to include a specialized electron blocking layer, and other organic layers, to be formed therein to meet the energy requirements for operating the display device. This known benefit in Cheon’s adjacent sub-pixel structure in Fig. 7 is applicable/may be used in conjunction with Cheon’s adjacent sub-pixel structure in Fig. 10 within the same display panel as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to structures of adjacent pixels in a display device. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying Cheon’s display panel to include an second electron blocking layer in a higher energy consuming pixel, e.g., a blue sub-pixel, to satisfy the energy requirements of the display panel, as shown in Cheon’s Fig. 7, would have yielded predictable results because (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate Cheon’s adjacent sub-pixel structure in Fig. 7 and Cheon’s adjacent sub-pixel structure in Fig. 10 within the same display panel and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Further, while Cheon does not explicitly teach, or imply, that the first shielding part is arranged in positional correspondence with the third sub-pixel area, Cheon does teach a separate shielding part arranged in positional correspondence with the third sub-pixel area, the blocking region between the third sub-pixel area and the first sub-pixel area (Fig. 6A; line 604), and the blocking region between the second sub-pixel area and the third sub-pixel area (Fig. 6A; line 602).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Shin teaches a display device wherein light shield layers LS (Fig. 7A) in a display area have a first part (Fig. 7A) overlapping a first and third sub-pixel, and a second part (Fig. 7A) overlapping a second sub-pixel. Examiner asserts that such a modification would have been obvious to apply to Cheon’s display panel to yield the display panel wherein the first shielding part is arranged in positional correspondence with the third sub-pixel area, the blocking region between the third sub-pixel area and the first sub-pixel area, and the blocking region between the second sub-pixel area and the third sub-pixel area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Cheon’s first light shielding part to include Shin’s light shielding layers’ structure wherein the first shielding part is arranged in positional correspondence with the third sub-pixel area, the blocking region between the third sub-pixel area and the first sub-pixel area, and the blocking region between the second sub-pixel area and the third sub-pixel area, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Shin’s light shielding layers are comparable to Cheon’s light shielding layers because both disclose light shielding structures between the display substrate and the first electrodes of the sub-pixels. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Cheon’s first light shielding part to include Shin’s light shielding layers’ structure wherein the first shielding part is arranged in positional correspondence with the third sub-pixel area, the blocking region between the third sub-pixel area and the first sub-pixel area, and the blocking region between the second sub-pixel area and the third sub-pixel area with the predictable result of protecting device layers during the manufacturing process ([0289]).
Examiner notes that Cheon does express a concern regarding lateral leakage. Cheon discloses that importance of lateral resistance 58 in at least [0043] and [0049] – [0052].
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wu discloses a functional layers including an electron blocking layer 216 (Fig. 2A); wherein an aging process of the functional layers forms a blocking structure, e.g., blocking structure 230a. In actuality, the named blocking structure is a deteriorated region of the functional layers, with a carrier mobility equal to one-fifth of the unprocessed functional layers (p. 7; para. 1 of the provided translation). Further, Wu discloses that the formation of the blocking structures increases the lateral resistance, i.e., resistance between adjacent sup-pixels (p. 7; para 5 of the provided translation), which is a concern addressed by Cheon. Additionally, the blocking structures correspond to a region overlapping the pixel definition layer 210. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the blocking structure disclosed by Wu as an effort to address concerns addressed by Cheon. Thus, Wu demonstrates a method wherein the resistance value may be tuned in different portions of an electron blocking layer such that first electron blocking layer located in the first sub-pixel area and the blocking region comprises the same multiple elements and the first electron blocking layer located in the second sub-pixel area and the blocking region comprises the same multiple elements.
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Kuo discloses a size-dependent charging energy of an individual nanocrystal in a discussion related to the material for an electron blocking layer 60 (at least [0034] and [0035]). Kuo teaches that the electron blocking layer 60 may include a first particle and a second particle; wherein the first and second particles may include the same material, and a size of the second particles is smaller than a size of the first particles ([0035]). Kuo explains that making the size of the second particles smaller than the size of the first particles effects the electron mobility of electrons in the electron blocking layer 60 due to the size-dependent charging energy of the material.
Additionally, Chen teaches in [0026] – [0027] that electron blocking material may be subject to bond breakage when excessive charge accumulation occurs; wherein excessive charge accumulation is known to occur when a current is applied, such as a controlled aging current. Chen specifically demonstrates how molecular damage may occur in charge blocking material; which directly results in a reduction in size. This supports Wu’s discussion (p. 7; para 4 of the provided translation) which states that when the current is applied there is damage to the molecular structure the material to which the current is applied. Thus, Wu’s explicitly teaching of molecular damage; applying the principle of size related to carrier mobility, as taught by Kuo; and with the understanding from Chen of how an aging current may directly lead to molecular size reduction as a form of molecular damage with the effect of reducing carrier mobility for electron blocking material may be readily combined with the display panel of Cheon. The resulting combination yields the display panel wherein:
… a hole mobility of the material of the first electron blocking layer located in the first sub-pixel area is greater than a hole mobility of the material of the first electron blocking layer corresponding to the first gap; and /or
a hole mobility of the material of the first electron blocking layer located in the second sub-pixel area is greater than a hole mobility of the material of the first electron blocking layer corresponding to the first gap; …
a hole mobility of a material of the second electron blocking layer in the third sub- pixel area is greater than the hole mobility of the material of at least a part of the first electron blocking layer located in the blocking region; …
… molecules, of the first electron blocking layer, located in the first sub-pixel area are greater in size than molecules, of the first electron blocking layer, located in the blocking region (Wu’s aging process is performed by applying an “aging current”, and does not introduce new matter into the first electron blocking layer in the blocking region, but rather reduces the molecular structure of the first electron blocking material. See p. 7; para. 4 of the provided translation);
… molecules, of the first electron blocking layer, located in the second sub-pixel area are greater in size than molecules, of the first electron blocking layer, located in the blocking region (Wu’s aging process is performed by applying an “aging current”, and does not introduce new matter into the first electron blocking layer in the blocking region, but rather reduces the molecular structure of the first electron blocking material. See p. 7; para. 4 of the provided translation); …
wherein a hole mobility of a material of the first electron blocking layer located in the first sub-pixel area is greater than a hole mobility of the material of at least a part of the first electron blocking layer located in the blocking region; and /or
a hole mobility of the material of the first electron blocking layer located in the second sub-pixel area is greater than a hole mobility of the material of at least a part of the first electron blocking layer located in the blocking region.
Wu’s aging process is performed by applying an “aging current” damages the molecular structure in the blocking region relative to the molecular structure found in the pixel areal; such that the sub-pixel areas have a “greater molecular structure” with a corresponding greater hole mobility. See p. 7; para. 4 of the provided translation
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Cheon’s first electron blocking layer and second electron blocking layer located in a region covered by their pixel defining layer PDL, i.e., the blocking region, to include a lower carrier mobility, e.g., hole mobility, than the carrier mobility of the first electron blocking layer and/or the second electron blocking layer located in the pixel region, i.e., a sub-pixel area, in an effort to reduce lateral leakage between sub-pixels, as disclosed by Wu, further in view of Kuo and Chen, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Cheon’s first and second electron blocking layers are comparable to Wu’s electron blocking layer because they both reduce overaccumulation of electrons to improve hole injection and the process to selectively alter carrier mobility of an electron blocking layer, as disclosed by Wu, further in view of Kuo and Chen, can be localized so as to not reduce the functionality of the electron blocking layer over a sub-pixel area. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Cheon’s display panel to include an aging process of the first electron blocking layer to form a region of the electron blocking layer over the blocking region with a lower hole mobility, as disclosed by Wu, further in view of Kuo and Chen, with the predictable result of forming a display panel wherein a hole mobility of the material of the first electron blocking layer located in the first sub-pixel area is greater than a hole mobility of the material of the first electron blocking layer corresponding to the first gap; and /or a hole mobility of the material of the first electron blocking layer located in the second sub-pixel area is greater than a hole mobility of the material of the first electron blocking layer corresponding to the first gap; a hole mobility of a material of the second electron blocking layer in the third sub- pixel area is greater than the hole mobility of the material of at least a part of the first electron blocking layer located in the blocking region; a hole mobility of a material of the first electron blocking layer located in the first sub-pixel area is greater than a hole mobility of the material of at least a part of the first electron blocking layer located in the blocking region; and/or a hole mobility of the material of the first electron blocking layer located in the second sub-pixel area is greater than a hole mobility of the material of at least a part of the first electron blocking layer located in the blocking region, such that lateral leakage may be reduced.
Regarding dependent claim 3, Cheon, further in view of Shin, Wu, Kuo, and Chen, teach the display panel according to claim 2, however, they do not explicitly teach wherein:
a width of the first gap is less than or equal to a width of the blocking region between the adjacent first and second sub-pixel (Cheon: Fig. 10 shows the gap between reflector layer 70 being less than the width of the blocking region).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Cheon, further in view of Wu, Kuo, Chen, Wen, teach the display panel according to claim [[5]]1, wherein:
the first sub-pixel area is a green sub-pixel area, the second sub-pixel area is a red sub-pixel area, and the third sub-pixel area is a blue sub pixel area.
Cheon teaches in Fig. 6A red and blue sub-pixel areas; wherein Fig. 10, the examiner is interpreting pixel 22-1 to be green and pixel 22-2 to be red. Additionally, pixel 22-3, discussed in [0043], is interpreted to be blue.
Regarding dependent claim 7, Cheon, further in view of Shin, Wu, Kuo, and Chen, teach the display panel according to claim 1, wherein the light emitting layer further comprises:
a first common layer (Cheon: Fig. 10; hole injection layer HIL) arranged between the substrate and the first electron blocking layer and located in the sub-pixel area and the blocking region (Cheon: Fig. 10);
Further in view of Wu’s aging process applied to the Cheon’s electron blocking layer, with supplementation from Kuo and Chen, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the aging process to alter the hole mobility of the first electron blocking layer in the blocking region to be one-fifth of the hole mobility of the first electron blocking layer not in the blocking region. See discussion under the rejection of claim 1. Therefore, Cheon, further in view of Wu, teach:
a sum of the hole mobility of the material of the first electron blocking layer and the hole mobility of the material of the first common layer located in the first sub-pixel area is greater than a sum of the hole mobility of the material of the at least a part of the first electron blocking layer and the hole mobility of the material of the first common layer located in the blocking region; and/or
a sum of the hole mobility of the material of the first electron blocking layer and the hole mobility of the material of the first common layer located in the second sub-pixel area is greater than a sum of the hole mobility of the material of the at least a part of the first electron blocking layer and the hole mobility of the material of the first common layer located in the blocking region.
Regarding dependent claim 8, Cheon, further in view of Shin, Wu, Kuo, and Chen, teach the display panel of claim 7, wherein the light emitting layer further comprises:
a second common layer (Cheon: Fig. 10; hole transport layer HTL) arranged between the first common layer and the first electron blocking layer and located in the sub-pixel area and the blocking region (Cheon: Fig. 10);
Further in view of Wu’s aging process applied to the Cheon’s electron blocking layer, with supplementation from Kuo and Chen, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the aging process to alter the hole mobility of the first electron blocking layer in the blocking region to be one-fifth of the hole mobility of the first electron blocking layer not in the blocking region. See discussion under the rejection of claim 1. Therefore, Cheon, further in view of Wu, teach:
a sum of the hole mobility of the material of the first electron blocking layer, the hole mobility of the material of the first common layer and the hole mobility of the material of the second common layer located in the first sub-pixel area is greater than a sum of the hole mobility of the material of the at least a part of the first electron blocking layer, the hole mobility of the material of the first common layer and the hole mobility of the material of the second common layer located in the blocking region; and/or
a sum of the hole mobility of the material of the first electron blocking layer, the hole mobility of the material of the first common layer and the hole mobility of the material of the second common layer located in the second sub-pixel area is greater than a sum of the hole mobility of the material of the at least a part of the first electron blocking layer, the hole mobility of the material of the first common layer and the hole mobility of the material of the second common layer located in the blocking region.
Regarding dependent claim 12, Cheon, further in view of Shin, Wu, Kuo, and Chen, teach the display panel according to claim 7, wherein
the first common layer is a hole injection layer (Cheon: Fig. 10; hole injection layer HIL).
Regarding dependent claim 13, Cheon, further in view of Shin, Wu, Kuo, and Chen, teach the display panel according to claim 12, wherein
the second common layer is a hole injection layer (Cheon: Fig. 10; hole transport layer HTL).
Regarding dependent claim 14, Cheon, further in view of Shin, Wu, Kuo, and Chen, teach the display panel according to claim 7; however, Cheon remains silent wherein
the first common layer is composed of any one or a combination from small organic molecules, polymers, halogen compounds, oxygen compounds, nitrogen compounds, carbon compounds.
However, Kuo explicitly teaches materials for their hole injection layer, e.g., conductive polymers ([0031]), that satisfies the first common layer is composed of any one or a combination from small organic molecules, polymers, halogen compounds, oxygen compounds, nitrogen compounds, carbon compounds.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Cheon’s first common layer to include the materials disclosed by Kuo for a hole injection layer, because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, Cheon’s first common layer materials and Kuo’s material for a hole injection layer perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being materials suitable for a hole injection layer. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of Cheon’s first common layer materials by replacing it with Kuo’s material for a hole injection layer. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Regarding dependent claim 15, Cheon, further in view of Shin, Wu, Kuo, and Chen, teach the display panel according to claim 14; however, Cheon remains silent wherein
the second common layer is composed of any one or a combination from small organic molecules, polymers, halogen compounds, oxygen compounds, nitrogen compounds, carbon compounds.
However, Kuo explicitly teaches materials for their hole transport layer, e.g., poly-TFB ([0031]), that satisfies the second common layer is composed of any one or a combination from small organic molecules, polymers, halogen compounds, oxygen compounds, nitrogen compounds, carbon compounds.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Cheon’s second common layer to include the materials disclosed by Kuo for a hole transport layer, because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, Cheon’s first common layer materials and Kuo’s material for a hole transport layer perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being materials suitable for a hole transport layer. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of Cheon’s first common layer materials by replacing it with Kuo’s material for a hole transport layer. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Regarding dependent claim 16, Cheon, further in view of Shin, Wu, Kuo, and Chen, teach the display panel according to claim 7, wherein
the second electron blocking layer is different in thickness from the first electron blocking layer.
Cheon teaches in [0048], “Electron blocking layers EBL-1 and EBL-2 may be formed from the same or different materials and may have the same or different thicknesses.”
Regarding dependent claim 17, Cheon, further in view of Shin, Wu, Kuo, and Chen, teach the display panel according to claim 16, wherein
the second electron blocking layer is less in thickness than the first electron blocking layer (Cheon: Fig. 7).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon et al. (US 20200035951 A1) and further in view of Shin et al. (US 20230157129 A1), Wu et al. (CN 113571656 A), Kuo et al. (US 20200266372 A1), Chen et al. (US 20220367826 A1) and Chen et al. (US 20220376199 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Cheon, further in view of Wu, Kuo, and Chen, teach the display panel according to claim 1, however, they remain silent wherein:
the hole mobility of the material of the first electron blocking layer located in the first sub-pixel area and the second sub-pixel area is in the range of 1E-4 cm2/ v∙s – 1E-2 cm2/ v∙s, and the hole mobility of the material of at least the part of the first electron blocking layer located in the blocking region is less than 1E-6 cm2/ v-s.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chen (US 20220376199 A1) teaches in [0076] a hole mobility of an electron blocking layer to be 10-4 cm2/ v∙s – 10-6 cm2/ v∙s. This demonstrate the hole mobility values claimed are typical hole mobility values for an electron blocking layer in a display panel.
Therefore, the claimed hole mobility range for the first electron blocking layer in sub-pixel areas and the blocking region would have been obvious, from at least [0076] of Chen (US 20220376199 A1), to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention because absent evidence or disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d454, 105 USQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the dimensions claimed or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the claimed dimensions or variable are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon et al. (US 20200035951 A1) and further in view of Shin et al. (US 20230157129 A1), Wu et al. (CN 113571656 A), Kuo et al. (US 20200266372 A1), Chen et al. (US 20220367826 A1) and Kang et al. (US 20230117065 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Cheon, further in view of Wu, Kuo, and Chen, teach the display panel according to claim 1; however, they remain silent wherein:
a Homo energy level of the material of the first electron blocking layer ranges from 5.50 eV to 6.00 eV.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kang teaches in [0115] that an electron blocking layer may have an absolute value for the HOMO energy level be 5.25 eV to 5.5 eV.
Therefore, the HOMO energy level of the material of the first electron blocking layer would have been obvious, from at least [0115] of Kang, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention because absent evidence or disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d454, 105 USQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the dimensions claimed or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the claimed dimensions or variable are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure:
US 20230074902 A1 – Previously relied upon in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 07/17/2025.
US 20150069361 A1 – Discloses similar display panel structure (E.g., Fig. 2).
US 20190165058 A1 – Previously relied upon in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 09/24/2024.
US 20220165974 A1 – teaches in Fig. 3A a separation between the electron blocking layer of a blue pixel and the electron blocking layer of an adjacent pixel.
US 20200227492 A1 – teaches in Fig. 4 a display panel structure wherein a first two electron blocking layers between a first two adjacent sub-pixels are formed to be in contact with each other and a third electron blocking layer in a sub-pixel adjacent to one of the first two adjacent sub-pixels is formed to have a gap between the third electron blocking layer and one of the first two electron blocking layers.
US 20230232651 A1– teaches a display panel with similar elements.
US 20190280238 A1– addresses lateral leakage.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIO A AUTORE whose telephone number is (571)270-0059. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chad Dicke can be reached on (571) 270-7996. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
MARIO A. AUTORE JR.
Examiner
Art Unit 2897
/MARIO ANDRES AUTORE JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2897 /CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights