Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed February 2nd, 2025 (“AMSB”), in which: claims 1 and 11 are amended; no claims are cancelled; no new claims are added; and the rejection of the claims are traversed. Claims 1 – 2, 5 – 8, 10 – 13, and 15 – 16 are currently pending an Office action on the merits as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 2, 5 – 8, 10 – 13, and 15 – 16 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection (Amendments).
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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Itai et al. (US 20080038583 A1), and further in view of Seo et al. (US 20020121860 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Itai teaches a light-emitting device comprising:
a first electrode (Fig. 2; positive electrode 201);
a second electrode (Fig. 2; negative electrode 701);
a unit (Examiner understands the applicant’s use of a unit to align with what is referred to, in the field of endeavor, as an electroluminescent unit; and examiner is interpreting Itai’s hole transport layer 401 and luminescent layer 501, as shown in Fig. 2, to be a unit); and
a first layer (Fig. 2; hole injection layer 301),
wherein the second electrode comprises a region overlapping with the first electrode (Fig. 2 shows the first and second electrodes overlapping),
wherein the unit comprises a region (Fig. 2) positioned between the first electrode and the second electrode,
wherein the unit comprises a second layer (Fig. 2; luminescent layer 501 interpreted as a second layer) and a third layer (Fig. 2; hole transport layer 401 interpreted as a third layer),
wherein the second layer comprises a region where the third layer is positioned between the second layer and the first electrode (Fig. 2),
wherein the second layer comprises a light-emitting material ([0042]),
wherein the first layer comprises a region (Figs. 3A – 4C; hole injection layers 301A) positioned between the third layer and the first electrode (Figs. 2 and 4A – 4C),
wherein the first layer comprises a first region (Fig. 4B; a high-concentration layer 301c and [0058]) and a second region (Fig. 4B; low-concentration layer 301d and [0058]),
wherein the first region comprises a region (Fig. 4C shows that the first region, i.e., high-concentration layer 301c, has at least three regions corresponding to the denoted 301g, 301e, and 301f) positioned between the second region and the first electrode (Figs. 3A – 4C), …
However, Itai remains silent regarding the light -emitting device wherein:
… wherein the first region comprises only a material having an acceptor property,
wherein the second region comprises the material having the acceptor property and a first material, and
wherein a thickness of the second region is larger than a thickness of the first region.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Seo teaches a light-emitting device wherein the first region (Fig. 20; first region 1811) comprises only a material having an acceptor property (hole injection material formed on the anode as disclosed in [0147]), wherein the second region (Fig. 20; second region 1813) comprises the material having the acceptor property and a first material (large molecules 1802 in the mixed region 1813), and wherein a thickness of the second region is larger than a thickness of the first region (Fig. 20). Examiner asserts that Seo discloses a known method of forming a light-emitting device such that this known technique would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, which may readily be applied to the light-emitting device of Itai.
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 Itai’s light-emitting device to include Seo’s method of forming carrier layers, such that a thickness of the second region is larger than a thickness of the first region, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Seo’s carrier layer formed on the anode is comparable to Itai’s carrier layer formed on their anode because they both disclose forming hole injection material on the anode. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Itai’s light-emitting device to include Seo’s method of forming carrier layers, such that a thickness of the second region is larger than a thickness of the first region with the predictable result of eliminating poor conformance regions (Seo: [0041] and [0052]).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Itai, further in view of Seo, teach the light-emitting device according to claim 1,
wherein the first region is in contact with the first electrode (Seo: Fig. 5 and [0147]. Also see [0052] to reference how Fig. 20 relates to Fig. 14; wherein Fig. 14 is further explained as a method of layering carrier layers in at least [0041]).
Claims 6 – 7, 11, and 15 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Itai et al. (US 20080038583 A1), and further in view of Seo et al. (US 20020121860 A1) and Seo et al. (US 20210126213 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Itai, further in view of Seo, teach:
a light-emitting apparatus (Fig. 6; organic EL display apparatus 100A) comprising:
the light-emitting device according to claim 1 ([0093]); and …
However, Itai remains silent regarding the light-emitting apparatus including:
…a transistor.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Seo (US 20210126213 A1) discloses a light-emitting apparatus in [0035], which includes a transistor.
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 Itai’s light-emitting device to include Seo’s transistor, because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, Itai’s light-emitting device as modified by Seo’s transistor can yield a predictable result of relaying a signal/voltage to the Itai’s light-emitting device since that is a function of transistors. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Regarding dependent claim 7, Itai, further in view of Seo and Seo, teach:
an electronic device (Seo (US 20210126213 A1): lighting device disclosed in [0036]) comprising:
the light-emitting apparatus (Seo (US 20210126213 A1): [0036]) according to claim 6; and
a sensor (Seo (US 20210126213 A1): sensor disclosed in [0252]), an operation button, a speaker, or a microphone.
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 the light-emitting apparatus of Itai and Seo to include Seo’s (US 20210126213 A1) sensor, because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, the light-emitting apparatus of Itai and Seo as modified by Seo’s (US 20210126213 A1) sensor can yield a predictable result of adding the sensor’s functionally to the light-emitting apparatus in one package. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Regarding independent claim 11, Itai teaches a light-emitting device comprising:
a first electrode (Fig. 2; positive electrode 201);
a second electrode (negative electrode 701);
a unit (Examiner understands the applicant’s use of a unit to align with what is referred to, in the field of endeavor, as an electroluminescent unit; and examiner is interpreting Itai’s hole transport layer 401 and luminescent layer 501, as shown in Fig. 2, to be a unit) between the first electrode and the second electrode (Fig. 2); and
a first layer (Fig. 2; hole injection layer 301) between the first electrode and the unit (Fig. 2),
wherein the unit comprises a second layer (Fig. 2; luminescent layer 501 interpreted as a second layer), a third layer (Fig. 2; hole transport layer 401 interpreted as a third layer) and a fourth layer (Fig. 2; electron injection transport layer 601),
wherein the third layer is positioned between the second layer and the
first electrode (Fig. 2),
wherein the fourth layer is positioned between the second electrode and the second layer (Fig. 2),
wherein the fourth layer comprises a third material (Itai discloses Alq used as the electron injection transport layer 601 in [0064]), …
wherein the second layer comprises a light-emitting material ([0042] teaches that luminescent layer 501 emits light of a wavelength, such that luminescent layer 501 must include a light-emitting material),
wherein the first layer comprises a first region (Fig. 4B; a high-concentration layer 301c and [0058]) and a second region (Fig. 4B; low-concentration layer 301d and [0058]),
wherein the first region is between the second region and the first
electrode (Figs. 3A – 4C), …
However, remains silent on the light-emitting device:
… wherein the third material is an organic complex of an alkali metal or an organic complex of an alkaline earth metal, …
wherein the first region comprises only a material having an acceptor property,
wherein the second region comprises the material having acceptor property and a first material, and
wherein a thickness of the second region is larger than a thickness of the first region.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Seo (US 20210126213 A1) discloses a light-emitting device wherein:
… the unit comprises … a fourth layer (Fig. 1B; electron injection layer 115 and charge generation layer 116 are interpreted to be a fourth layer) …
wherein the fourth layer comprises a third material (materials disclosed in [0166] – [0167]; wherein [0142] discloses that Fig. 1B includes both the electron injection layer 115 and the charge generation layer 116 ),
wherein the third material is an organic complex of an alkali metal or an organic complex of an alkaline earth metal ([166]), …
Thus, Seo (US 20210126213 A1) provides a disclosure that covers the deficiency in Itai’s disclosure as it relates to the present invention; such that Itai’s third material may be substituted with Seo’s third material.
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 Itai’s third material to include Seo’s (US 20210126213 A1) third material, because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, Itai’s third material and Seo’s third material perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being electron injection. 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 Itai’s third material by replacing it with Seo’s third material. 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.
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Seo (US 20020121860 A1) teaches a light-emitting device wherein the first region (Fig. 20; first region 1811) comprises only a material having an acceptor property (hole injection material formed on the anode as disclosed in [0147]), wherein the second region (Fig. 20; second region 1813) comprises the material having the acceptor property and a first material (large molecules 1802 in the mixed region 1813), and wherein a thickness of the second region is larger than a thickness of the first region (Fig. 20). Examiner asserts that Seo (US 20020121860 A1) discloses a known method of forming a light-emitting device such that this known technique would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, which may readily be applied to the light-emitting device of Itai.
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 Itai’s light-emitting device to include Seo’s (US 20020121860 A1) method of forming carrier layers, such that a thickness of the second region is larger than a thickness of the first region, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Seo’s (US 20020121860 A1) carrier layer formed on the anode is comparable to Itai’s carrier layer formed on their anode because they both disclose forming hole injection material on the anode. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Itai’s light-emitting device to include Seo’s (US 20020121860 A1) method of forming carrier layers, such that a thickness of the second region is larger than a thickness of the first region with the predictable result of eliminating poor conformance regions (Seo(US 20020121860 A1): [0041] and [0052]).
Regarding dependent claim 15, Itai, further in view of Seo and Seo, teach the light-emitting device according to claim 11,
wherein the first region is in contact with the first electrode (Seo (US 20020121860 A1): Fig. 5 and [0147]. Also see [0052] to reference how Fig. 20 relates to Fig. 14; wherein Fig. 14 is further explained as a method of layering carrier layers in at least [0041]).
Regarding dependent claim 16, Itai, further in view of Seo and Seo, teach:
a light-emitting apparatus (Seo (US 20210126213 A1): light-emitting apparatus disclosed in [0035]) comprising:
the light-emitting device according to claim 11 ( Seo (US 20210126213 A1): [0035]); and
a transistor ( Seo (US 20210126213 A1): transistor disclosed in [0035]).
Claims 2, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Itai et al. (US 20080038583 A1), and further in view of Seo et al. (US 20020121860 A1), Seo et al. (US 20210126213 A1), and Itai (US 20050142384 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Itai, further in view of Seo, teach the light-emitting device according to claim 1,
wherein the unit comprises a fourth layer (Fig. 2; electron injection transport layer 601),
wherein the fourth layer comprises a region positioned between the second electrode and the second layer (Fig. 2),
wherein the fourth layer comprises a third material (Itai discloses Alq used as the electron injection transport layer 601 in [0064]), …
However, remains silent on the light-emitting device:
… wherein the third material is an organic complex of an alkali metal or an organic complex of an alkaline earth metal,
wherein the third layer comprises a third region and a fourth region,
wherein the fourth region comprises a region positioned between the second layer and the third region,
wherein the fourth region comprises a second material,
wherein the first material has a first HOMO level,
wherein the first HOMO level is higher than or equal to -5.7 eV and lower than or equal to -5.4 eV,
wherein the second material has a second HOMO level, and
wherein the second HOMO level differs by -0.2 eV to 0 eV inclusive from the first HOMO level.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Seo (US 20210126213 A1) discloses a light-emitting device wherein:
the unit comprises a fourth layer (Fig. 1B; electron injection layer 115 and charge generation layer 116 are interpreted to be a fourth layer) … wherein the fourth layer comprises a third material (materials disclosed in [0166] – [0167]; wherein [0142] discloses that Fig. 1B includes both the electron injection layer 115 and the charge generation layer 116 ),
the third material is an organic complex of an alkali metal or an organic complex of an alkaline earth metal ([166]), …
Thus, Seo (US 20210126213 A1) provides a disclosure that covers the deficiency in Itai’s disclosure as it relates to the present invention; such that Itai’s third material may be substituted with Seo’s third material.
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 Itai’s third material to include Seo’s (US 20210126213 A1) third material, because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, Itai’s third material and Seo’s third material perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being electron injection. 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 Itai’s third material by replacing it with Seo’s (US 20210126213 A1) third material. 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.
Further, Itai, further in view of Seo (US 20210126213 A1) disclose:
wherein the third layer (Seo discloses a hole-transport layer 112, interpreted to be analogous to Itai’s hole transport layer 401) comprises a third region (Seo’s hole-transport layer 112 includes a first hole-transport layer 112-1, interpreted to be a third region) and a fourth region (Seo’s hole-transport layer 112 includes a second hole-transport layer 112-2, interpreted to be a fourth region),
wherein the fourth region comprises a region positioned between the second layer and the third region (Seo’s third layer has similar positioning in the semiconductor stack to that disclosed by Itai; wherein Seo’s fourth region, i.e., second hole-transport layer 112-2, is shown in Fig. 1B to be between their second layer, i.e., light-emitting layer 113, and third region, i.e., first hole-transport layer 112-1),
wherein the fourth region comprises a second material (Seo: [0287] discloses PCzN2 as a material of the fourth region), …
wherein the second material has a second HOMO level (Seo: [0017] discloses that a fourth substance is the hole-transporting property; further, in at least [0287], Seo discloses PCzN2 as the material for a hole-transport layer), and …
Examiner is taking Official Notice that PCzN2 has an associated HOMO level, interpreted to be a second HOMO level.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to include a reported HOMO level value for PCzN2 in the disclosure of Seo (US 20210126213 A1); Official Notice is taken that the HOMO level is a well-known concept in the art this is fundamental to the operation of an OLED device, because the HOMO level for a molecule is an important intrinsic property that determines the electrical characteristics of that molecule that may be utilized to conduct an electrical current
Regarding the HOMO level of the first material, examiner asserts that the first material, understood to be a host material as described in the instant application, may be substituted by another disclosure of Itai (US 20050142384 A1). Within this disclosure, Itai teaches that NPD may be a host material ([0043] and Fig. 6) and doped with a platinum ([0031]). Further, Itai teaches that an ionizing potential of their NPD layer may be 5.46 eV, i.e., a HOMO level higher than or equal to -5.7 eV and lower than or equal to -5.4 eV.
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 Itai’s host material for the hole injection layer, i.e., a first material, to include NPD, as disclosed by Itai (US 20050142384 A1), because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, Itai’s host material and Itai’s (US 20050142384 A1) host material, NPD, perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being host material in 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 Itai’s host material for the hole injection layer, i.e., a first material, by replacing it with Itai’s (US 20050142384 A1) host material, NPD. 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.
Examiner is taking Official Notice that ionizing potential is closely associated the HOMO level, because the ionizing potential is the experimental energy value to remove an electron at the high occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) and the HOMO level is the theoretical energy value to remove an electron at the high occupied molecular orbital (HOMO).
Thus, examiner asserts that Itai (US 20050142384 A1) teaches wherein the first material has a first HOMO level, wherein the first HOMO level is higher than or equal to -5.7 eV and lower than or equal to -5.4 eV.
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 Itai’s light-emitting device to include Itai’s (US 20050142384 A1) teaching of a first HOMO value for the first material, because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify the HOMO value of Itai’s first material to include the HOMO value of Itai’s (US 20050142384 A1) host material, NPD, via the above substitution is provided by Official Notice, because Itai (US 20050142384 A1) discloses an ionization energy for their host material, which would be known by one of ordinary skill in the art to be approximately equal to the HOMO value for that material because the ionizing potential is the experimental energy value to remove an electron at the high occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) and the HOMO level is the theoretical energy value to remove an electron at the high occupied molecular orbital (HOMO). 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 Itai’s light-emitting device to include Itai’s (US 20050142384 A1) teaching of a first HOMO value for the first material with the motivation of providing a light-emitting device with a proper configuration for injecting hole from the anode. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of forming a light-emitting device wherein the first material has a first HOMO level, wherein the first HOMO level is higher than or equal to -5.7 eV and lower than or equal to -5.4 eV.
Further, Seo teaches in 0018] the fourth substance has a HOMO level of which is higher than or equal to −5.8 eV and lower than or equal to −5.4 eV. Thus, Itai further in view of Seo and Itai, teach:
… wherein the second HOMO level differs by -0.2 eV to 0 eV inclusive from the first HOMO level (Seo: [0018] the fourth substance has a HOMO level of which is higher than or equal to −5.8 eV and lower than or equal to −5.4 eV ).
The HOMO levels provided by Itai (US 20050142384 A1) and Seo (US 20210126213 A1) makes the claimed difference in the HOMO levels obvious.
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 the light-emitting device of Itai, further in view of Seo (US 20020121860 A1), to include a first HOMO level and a second HOMO level wherein the second HOMO level differs by -0.2 eV to 0 eV inclusive from the first HOMO level, in view of Seo (US 20210126213 A1) and Itai (US 20050142384 A1), because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify the light-emitting device of Itai, further in view of Seo (US 20020121860 A1), to include a first HOMO level and a second HOMO level wherein the second HOMO level differs by -0.2 eV to 0 eV inclusive from the first HOMO level, in view of Seo (US 20210126213 A1) and Itai (US 20050142384 A1), is implicitly provided by Seo, who provides a discussion of HOMO level differences (at least [0162] of Seo (US 20210126213 A1)). The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of the relative HOMO levels of the organic layers in the light-emitting device in order to optimize device function.
Further, the claimed HOMO level difference between the first HOMO level and the second HOMO level would have been obvious, from at least the disclosed HOMO levels disclosed by Seo (US 20210126213 A1) and Itai (US 20050142384 A1), for their respective materials, 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).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Itai, further in view of Seo, Seo, and Itai, teach the light-emitting device according to claim 2,
wherein the first region is in contact with the first electrode (Seo (US 20020121860 A1): Fig. 5 and [0147]. Also see [0052] to reference how Fig. 20 relates to Fig. 14; wherein Fig. 14 is further explained as a method of layering carrier layers in at least [0041]).
Regarding dependent claim 12, Itai, further in view of Seo and Seo, teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 11; however, Itai remains silent regarding the light-emitting device wherein
the third layer comprises a third region and a fourth region,
wherein the fourth region comprises a region positioned between the second layer and the third region,
wherein the fourth region comprises a second material,
wherein the first material has a first HOMO level,
wherein the first HOMO level is higher than or equal to -5.7 eV and lower than or equal to -5.4 eV,
wherein the second material has a second HOMO level, and
wherein the second HOMO level differs by -0.2 eV to 0 eV inclusive from the first HOMO level.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Seo (US 20210126213 A1) teaches a light-emitting device:
wherein the third layer (Seo discloses a hole-transport layer 112, interpreted to be analogous to Itai’s hole transport layer 401) comprises a third region (Seo’s hole-transport layer 112 includes a first hole-transport layer 112-1, interpreted to be a third region) and a fourth region (Seo’s hole-transport layer 112 includes a second hole-transport layer 112-2, interpreted to be a fourth region),
wherein the fourth region comprises a region positioned between the second layer and the third region (Seo’s third layer has similar positioning in the semiconductor stack to that disclosed by Itai; wherein Seo’s fourth region, i.e., second hole-transport layer 112-2, is shown in Fig. 1B to be between their second layer, i.e., light-emitting layer 113, and third region, i.e., first hole-transport layer 112-1),
wherein the fourth region comprises a second material (Seo: [0287] discloses PCzN2 as a material of the fourth region), …
wherein the second material has a second HOMO level (Seo: [0017] discloses that a fourth substance is the hole-transporting property; further, in at least [0287], Seo discloses PCzN2 as the material for a hole-transport layer), and …
Examiner is taking Official Notice that PCzN2 has an associated HOMO level, interpreted to be a second HOMO level.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to include a reported HOMO level value for PCzN2 in the disclosure of Seo (US 20210126213 A1); Official Notice is taken that the HOMO level is a well-known concept in the art this is fundamental to the operation of an OLED device, because the HOMO level for a molecule is an important intrinsic property that determines the electrical characteristics of that molecule that may be utilized to conduct an electrical current
Regarding the HOMO level of the first material, examiner asserts that the first material, understood to be a host material as described in the instant application, may be substituted by another disclosure of Itai (US 20050142384 A1). Within this disclosure, Itai teaches that NPD may be a host material ([0043] and Fig. 6) and doped with a platinum ([0031]). Further, Itai teaches that an ionizing potential of their NPD layer may be 5.46 eV, i.e., a HOMO level higher than or equal to -5.7 eV and lower than or equal to -5.4 eV.
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 Itai’s host material for the hole injection layer, i.e., a first material, to include NPD, as disclosed by Itai (US 20050142384 A1), because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, Itai’s host material and Itai’s (US 20050142384 A1) host material, NPD, perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being host material in 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 Itai’s host material for the hole injection layer, i.e., a first material, by replacing it with Itai’s (US 20050142384 A1) host material, NPD. 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.
Examiner is taking Official Notice that ionizing potential is closely associated the HOMO level, because the ionizing potential is the experimental energy value to remove an electron at the high occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) and the HOMO level is the theoretical energy value to remove an electron at the high occupied molecular orbital (HOMO).
Thus, examiner asserts that Itai (US 20050142384 A1) teaches wherein the first material has a first HOMO level, wherein the first HOMO level is higher than or equal to -5.7 eV and lower than or equal to -5.4 eV.
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 Itai’s light-emitting device to include Itai’s (US 20050142384 A1) teaching of a first HOMO value for the first material, because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify the HOMO value of Itai’s first material to include the HOMO value of Itai’s (US 20050142384 A1) host material, NPD, via the above substitution is provided by Official Notice, because Itai (US 20050142384 A1) discloses an ionization energy for their host material, which would be known by one of ordinary skill in the art to be approximately equal to the HOMO value for that material because the ionizing potential is the experimental energy value to remove an electron at the high occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) and the HOMO level is the theoretical energy value to remove an electron at the high occupied molecular orbital (HOMO). 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 Itai’s light-emitting device to include Itai’s (US 20050142384 A1) teaching of a first HOMO value for the first material with the motivation of providing a light-emitting device with a proper configuration for injecting hole from the anode. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of forming a light-emitting device wherein the first material has a first HOMO level, wherein the first HOMO level is higher than or equal to -5.7 eV and lower than or equal to -5.4 eV.
Further, Seo (US 20210126213 A1) teaches in [0018] the fourth substance has a HOMO level of which is higher than or equal to −5.8 eV and lower than or equal to −5.4 eV. Thus, Itai further in view of Seo and Itai, teach:
… wherein the second HOMO level differs by -0.2 eV to 0 eV inclusive from the first HOMO level (Seo (US 20210126213 A1): [0018] the fourth substance has a HOMO level of which is higher than or equal to −5.8 eV and lower than or equal to −5.4 eV ).
The HOMO levels provided by Itai (US 20050142384 A1) and Seo (US 20210126213 A1) makes the claimed difference in the HOMO levels obvious.
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 the light-emitting device of Itai, further in view of Seo (US 20020121860 A1), to include a first HOMO level and a second HOMO level wherein the second HOMO level differs by -0.2 eV to 0 eV inclusive from the first HOMO level, in view of Seo (US 20210126213 A1) and Itai (US 20050142384 A1), because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify the light-emitting device of Itai, further in view of Seo (US 20020121860 A1), to include a first HOMO level and a second HOMO level wherein the second HOMO level differs by -0.2 eV to 0 eV inclusive from the first HOMO level, in view of Seo (US 20210126213 A1) and Itai (US 20050142384 A1), is implicitly provided by Seo (US 20210126213 A1), who provides a discussion of HOMO level differences (at least [0162] of Seo (US 20210126213 A1)). The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of the relative HOMO levels of the organic layers in the light-emitting device in order to optimize device function.
Further, the claimed HOMO level difference between the first HOMO level and the second HOMO level would have been obvious, from at least the disclosed HOMO levels disclosed by Seo (US 20210126213 A1) and Itai (US 20050142384 A1), for their respective materials, 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).
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Itai et al. (US 20080038583 A1), and further in view of Seo et al. (US 20020121860 A1), Seo et al. (US 20210126213 A1), Itai (US 20050142384 A1), Manninen et al. (Manninen, V. M., Omar, W. A., Heiskanen, J. P., Lemmetyinen, H. J., & Hormi, O. E. (2012). Synthesis and characterization of tris-(5-amino-8-hydroxyquinoline)aluminum complexes and their use as anode buffer layers in inverted organic solar cells. Journal of Materials Chemistry, 22(43), 22971. https://doi.org/10.1039/c2jm35292c) and Lee et al. (US 20200212138 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Itai, further in view of Seo, Seo, and Itai, teach the light-emitting device according to claim 2,
wherein the second layer comprises a fourth material (Itai discloses Alq used as a material of the second layer in at least [0070]),
wherein the fourth material has a first LUMO level, …
Examiner is taking Official Notice that Itai’s fourth material Alq has an associated LUMO level, interpreted to be a first LUMO level.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to include a reported LUMO level value for ALq in the disclosure of Itai; Official Notice is taken that the LUMO level is a well-known concept in the art this is fundamental to the operation of an OLED device, because the LUMO level for a molecule is an important intrinsic property that determines the electrical characteristics of that molecule that may be utilized to conduct an electrical current.
Itai further discloses:
wherein the fourth layer (Fig. 2; electron injection transport layer 601) …
However, Itai remains silent regarding:
the fourth layer that … comprises a fifth region and a sixth region,
wherein the fifth region comprises a region positioned between the sixth region and the second layer,
wherein the fifth region comprises a fifth material,
wherein the sixth region comprises the third material,
wherein the fifth material has a second LUMO level, and
wherein the second LUMO level differs by -0.4 eV to -0.1 eV inclusive from the first LUMO level.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Seo (US 20210126213 A1) teaches a light-emitting device:
… wherein the fourth layer (Fig. 1B; electron injection layer 115 and charge generation layer 116 are interpreted to be a fourth layer; wherein [0142] discloses that Fig. 1B includes both the electron injection layer 115 and the charge generation layer 116) comprises a fifth region (Fig. 1B; electron injection layer 115) and a sixth region (Fig. 1B; charge generation layer 116),
wherein the fifth region comprises a region positioned between the sixth region and the second layer (Fig. 1B),
wherein the fifth region comprises a fifth material ([0166]; e.g., LiF),
wherein the sixth region comprises the third material ([0167]),
wherein the fifth material has a second LUMO level, and …
Examiner is taking Official Notice that Seo’s Seo (US 20210126213 A1) fifth material LiF has an associated LUMO level, interpreted to be a second LUMO level.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to include a reported LUMO level value for LiF in the disclosure of Seo (US 20210126213 A1); Official Notice is taken that the LUMO level is a well-known concept in the art this is fundamental to the operation of an OLED device, because the LUMO level for a molecule is an important intrinsic property that determines the electrical characteristics of that molecule that may be utilized to conduct an electrical current.
And thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Itai’s fourth layer to include Seo’s Seo (US 20210126213 A1) fourth layer including a fifth and a sixth region, because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, Itai’s fourth layer and Seo’s Seo (US 20210126213 A1) fourth layer including a fifth and a sixth region perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being electron injection. 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 Itai’s fourth layer by replacing it with Seo’s (US 20210126213 A1) fourth layer including a fifth and a sixth region. 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.
Further, to supplement some deficiencies of Itai and Seo, Manninen published a report in Journal of Materials Chemistry, wherein they disclose a LUMO level of Alq to be ~(-2.4) eV (Fig. 5).
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses a display device with an acceptor material having a LUMO level in the range of (-4) – (-2) eV ([0090]). Lee’s doner material is applicable to Seo’s (US 20210126213 A1) fourth layer because Seo’s fourth layer includes an alkali metal and/or an alkaline earth metal; wherein Lee discloses the same for their acceptor material ([0008]).
Thus, the relative ranges for the LUMO levels of Alq, as reported by Manninen, with Lee’s doner material, make a light-emitting device wherein the second LUMO level differs by -0.4 eV to -0.1 eV inclusive from the first LUMO level an obvious step in the routine optimization and experimentation in display device technology.
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 the light-emitting device of Itai and Seo (US 20210126213 A1) to include a first LUMO level and a second LUMO level wherein the second LUMO level differs by -0.4 eV to -0.1 eV inclusive from the first LUMO level, in view of Manninen and Lee, because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify the light-emitting device of Itai and Seo (US 20210126213 A1) to include a first LUMO level and a second LUMO level wherein the second LUMO level differs by -0.4 eV to -0.1 eV inclusive from the first LUMO level, in view of Manninen and Lee, is implicitly provided by Seo (US 20210126213 A1), who provides a discussion of LUMO level differences (at least [0120] of Seo (US 20210126213 A1)). The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of the relative LUMO levels of the organic layers in the light-emitting device in order to optimize device function.
The claimed LUMO level difference between the first LUMO level and the second LUMO level would have been obvious, from at least the disclosed LUMO levels disclosed by Seo (US 20210126213 A1), Manninen, and Lee, for their respective materials, 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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Itai et al. (US 20080038583 A1), and further in view of Seo et al. (US 20020121860 A1), Seo et al. (US 20210126213 A1), Manninen et al. (Manninen, V. M., Omar, W. A., Heiskanen, J. P., Lemmetyinen, H. J., & Hormi, O. E. (2012). Synthesis and characterization of tris-(5-amino-8-hydroxyquinoline)aluminum complexes and their use as anode buffer layers in inverted organic solar cells. Journal of Materials Chemistry, 22(43), 22971. https://doi.org/10.1039/c2jm35292c) and Lee et al. (US 20200212138 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 13, Itai, further in view of Seo and Seo, teach the light-emitting device according to claim 11,
wherein the second layer comprises a fourth material (Itai discloses Alq used as a material of the second layer in at least [0070]),
wherein the fourth material has a first LUMO level, …
Examiner is taking Official Notice that Itai’s fourth material Alq has an associated LUMO level, interpreted to be a first LUMO level.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to include a reported LUMO level value for ALq in the disclosure of Itai; Official Notice is taken that the LUMO level is a well-known concept in the art this is fundamental to the operation of an OLED device, because the LUMO level for a molecule is an important intrinsic property that determines the electrical characteristics of that molecule that may be utilized to conduct an electrical current
However, Itai remains silent regarding:
… wherein the fourth layer comprises a fifth region and a sixth region,
wherein the fifth region comprises a region positioned between the sixth
region and the second layer,
wherein the fifth region comprises a fifth material,
wherein the sixth region comprises the third material,
wherein the fifth material has a second LUMO level, and
wherein the second LUMO level differs by -0.4 eV to -0.1 eV inclusive from the first LUMO level.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Seo (US 20210126213 A1) teaches a light-emitting device:
… wherein the fourth layer (Fig. 1B; electron injection layer 115 and charge generation layer 116 are interpreted to be a fourth layer; wherein [0142] discloses that Fig. 1B includes both the electron injection layer 115 and the charge generation layer 116) comprises a fifth region (Fig. 1B; electron injection layer 115) and a sixth region (Fig. 1B; charge generation layer 116),
wherein the fifth region comprises a region positioned between the sixth
region and the second layer (Fig. 1B),
wherein the fifth region comprises a fifth material ([0166]; e.g., LiF),
wherein the sixth region comprises the third material ([0167]),
wherein the fifth material has a second LUMO level, and …
Examiner is taking Official Notice that Seo’s (US 20210126213 A1) fifth material LiF has an associated LUMO level, interpreted to be a second LUMO level.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to include a reported LUMO level value for LiF in the disclosure of Seo (US 20210126213 A1); Official Notice is taken that the LUMO level is a well-known concept in the art this is fundamental to the operation of an OLED device, because the LUMO level for a molecule is an important intrinsic property that determines the electrical characteristics of that molecule that may be utilized to conduct an electrical current.
And thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Itai’s fourth layer to include Seo’s (US 20210126213 A1) fourth layer including a fifth and a sixth region, because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, Itai’s fourth layer and Seo’s (US 20210126213 A1) fourth layer including a fifth and a sixth region perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being electron injection. 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 Itai’s fourth layer by replacing it with Seo’s (US 20210126213 A1) fourth layer including a fifth and a sixth region. 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.
Further, to supplement some deficiencies of Itai and Seo (US 20210126213 A1), Manninen published a report in Journal of Materials Chemistry, wherein they disclose a LUMO level of Alq to be ~(-2.4) eV (Fig. 5).
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses a display device with an acceptor material having a LUMO level in the range of (-4) – (-2) eV ([0090]). Lee’s doner material is applicable to Seo’s (US 20210126213 A1) fourth layer because Seo’s (US 20210126213 A1) fourth layer includes an alkali metal and/or an alkaline earth metal; wherein Lee discloses the same for their acceptor material ([0008]).
Thus, the relative ranges for the LUMO levels of Alq, reported by Manninen, with Lee’s doner material make a light-emitting device wherein the second LUMO level differs by -0.4 eV to -0.1 eV inclusive from the first LUMO level an obvious step in the routine optimization and experimentation in display device technology.
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 the light-emitting device of Itai and Seo (US 20210126213 A1) to include a first LUMO level and a second LUMO level wherein the second LUMO level differs by -0.4 eV to -0.1 eV inclusive from the first LUMO level, in view of Manninen and Lee, because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify the light-emitting device of Itai and Seo (US 20210126213 A1) to include a first LUMO level and a second LUMO level wherein the second LUMO level differs by -0.4 eV to -0.1 eV inclusive from the first LUMO level, in view of Manninen and Lee, is implicitly provided by Seo (US 20210126213 A1), who provides a discussion of LUMO level differences (at least [0120] of Seo (US 20210126213 A1)). The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of the relative LUMO levels of the organic layers in the light-emitting device in order to optimize device function.
The claimed LUMO level difference between the first LUMO level and the second LUMO level would have been obvious, from at least the disclosed LUMO levels disclosed by Seo, Manninen, and Lee, for their respective materials, 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20160329497 A1 – previously relied upon.
US 20210234113 A1 – previously relied upon.
Zhu, L., Kim, E.-G., Yi, Y., & Brédas, J.-L. (2011). Charge transfer in molecular complexes with 2,3,5,6-tetrafluoro-7,7,8,8-tetracyanoquinodimethane (F4-tcnq): A density functional theory study. Chemistry of Materials, 23(23), 5149–5159. https://doi.org/10.1021/cm201798x was previously relied on.
US 9520575 B2 teaches similar layers for a light-emitting device.
US 20150192835 A1 teaches similar layers for a light-emitting device.
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