DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed March 11, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 6-9, 11-12, and 17-20 remain withdrawn in response to the restriction requirement set forth in the office action mailed November 14, 2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-5, 10, 14-16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yam et. al. (US 20210074933 A1), hereinafter Yam, in view of Züfle et. al. (“Determination of charge transport activation energy and injection barrier in organic semiconductor devices,” J. Appl. Phys. 21 September 2017), hereinafter Zuefle.
Regarding claim 1, Yam teaches a light-emitting device (Fig 3 OLED structure 300, [0126]), comprising: an electron transport layer (Fig 3 electron transport layer 320, [0126]), an energy level matching layer (Fig 3 not shown hole blocking layer, [0126]), and a light-emitting layer (Fig 3 light-emitting layer 330, [0126]) that are stacked (Fig 3); wherein the light-emitting layer (Fig 3 light-emitting layer 330, [0126]) comprises a blue light-emitting layer (Fig 2 shows the dopants used by Lam to emit blue, [0032]).
Yam fails to teach a first difference exists between an average activation energy of the electron transport layer and an average activation energy of the energy level matching layer; a second difference exists between the average activation energy of the energy level matching layer and an average activation energy of a host material of the light-emitting layer; an absolute value of the first difference is less than an absolute value of the second difference; the absolute value of the first difference is less than 0.05 eV, and the absolute value of the second difference is greater than or equal to 0.1 eV and less than or equal to 0.15 eV; wherein a current change rate of the energy level matching layer after a cyclic voltammetry test is less than 1%..
Regarding a first difference exists between an average activation energy of the electron transport layer and an average activation energy of the energy level matching layer; a second difference exists between the average activation energy of the energy level matching layer and an average activation energy of a host material of the light-emitting layer; an absolute value of the first difference is less than an absolute value of the second difference. Zuefle teaches organic semiconductors have characteristic activation energies in the range of 0.2-0.6eV (Abstract). Zuefle teaches the activation energy of an α-NPD/Alq3 bilayer as 0.53eV (Fig 2). Zuefle further teaches the activation energy of an α-NPD as 0.28eV (Discussion). This would make the activation energy of the Alq3 0.27eV by subtraction. Zuefle further teaches that the method presented can be applied to other materials to determine activation energies (Summary). This would allow for choosing materials what would be able to achieve high efficiencies due to good charge carrier injection (Introduction). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would choose an electron transport layer material from Lam, apply the teachings of Zuefle to find an electron transport layer material whose average activation energy would create a first difference with an average activation energy of an energy matching layer material, such as the Alq3 layer taught by Zuelfle. Further, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would choose a host material of the light emitting layer from Lam and apply the teachings of Zuefle to find host material of the light-emitting layer whose average activation energy would create a second difference with an average activation energy of an energy matching layer material, such as the Alq3 layer taught by Zuelfle. Additionally, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would choose the materials such that an absolute value of the first difference is less than an absolute value of the second difference. MPEP 2143(I)(G)
Regarding the absolute value of the first difference is less than 0.05 eV, and the absolute value of the second difference is greater than or equal to 0.1 eV and less than or equal to 0.15 eV. Zuefle teaches organic semiconductors have characteristic activation energies in the range of 0.2-0.6eV (Abstract). Zuefle further teaches that the method presented can be applied to other materials to determine activation energies (Summary). This would allow for choosing materials what would be able to achieve high efficiencies due to good charge carrier injection (Introduction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the materials used for the electron transport layer, energy matching layer, and light-emitting layer as Zuefle has identified the activation energies of the materials and their impact on good charge carrier injection as a result-effective variable. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the absolute value of the first difference is less than 0.05 eV, and the absolute value of the second difference is greater than or equal to 0.1 eV and less than or equal to 0.15 eV, in order to achieve high efficiencies due to good charge injection, as taught by Zuefle. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed differences are for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed differences).
Regarding a current change rate of the energy level matching layer after a cyclic voltammetry test is less than 1%. Lam teaches that a hole blocking layer is employed to improve device performance ([0024]). Lam also teaches materials that are used in the instant application for the energy matching layer as an electron transport layer material (BCP, TPBI, [0130]). Lam further teaches using electron transport layer material as a hole blocking layer (3TPYMB used as hole blocking layer [0189] and electron transport layer [0190]). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have used BCP as the hole blocking layer for Lam. In doing so the BCP layer of Lam as modified by Zuefle would have a current change rate of the energy level matching layer after a cyclic voltammetry test is less than 1%. MPEP 2112 (II)
Regarding claim 3, Yam as modified in claim 1 fails to teach the average activation energy of the energy level matching layer has a difference of -0.05 eV to 0 eV compared to the average activation energy of the electron transport layer; an average activation energy of the blue light-emitting layer has a difference of 0.05 eV to 0.15 eV compared to the average activation energy of the electron transport layer.
Regarding the average activation energy of the energy level matching layer has a difference of -0.05 eV to 0 eV compared to the average activation energy of the electron transport layer; an average activation energy of the blue light-emitting layer has a difference of 0.05 eV to 0.15 eV compared to the average activation energy of the electron transport layer. Zuefle teaches organic semiconductors have characteristic activation energies in the range of 0.2-0.6eV (Abstract). Zuefle further teaches that the method presented can be applied to other materials to determine activation energies (Summary). This would allow for choosing materials what would be able to achieve high efficiencies due to good charge carrier injection (Introduction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the materials used for the electron transport layer, energy matching layer, and light-emitting layer as Zuefle has identified the activation energies of the materials and their impact on good charge carrier injection as a result-effective variable. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the average activation energy of the energy level matching layer has a difference of -0.05 eV to 0 eV compared to the average activation energy of the electron transport layer; an average activation energy of the blue light-emitting layer has a difference of 0.05 eV to 0.15 eV compared to the average activation energy of the electron transport layer, in order to achieve high efficiencies due to good charge injection, as taught by Zuefle. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed differences are for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed differences).
Regarding claim 4, Yam as modified in claim 1 teaches the blue light-emitting layer (Fig 3 light-emitting layer 330 as modified in claim 2, [0126]) comprises a blue light-emitting host material (host materials list, [0131]) and a blue light- emitting doped material (phosphorescent gold metal complex, [0131]).
Yam fails to teach a third difference exists between an average activation energy of the blue light-emitting doped material and the average activation energy of the energy level matching layer; an absolute value of the third difference is less than the absolute value of the second difference.
Regarding a third difference exists between an average activation energy of the blue light-emitting doped material and the average activation energy of the energy level matching layer; an absolute value of the third difference is less than the absolute value of the second difference. Zuefle teaches organic semiconductors have characteristic activation energies in the range of 0.2-0.6eV (Abstract). Zuefle further teaches that the method presented can be applied to other materials to determine activation energies (Summary). This would allow for choosing materials what would be able to achieve high efficiencies due to good charge carrier injection (Introduction). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would calculate the average activation energy of one of the phosphorescent gold metal complexes of Lam and choose one such that the average activation energy would create a third difference with an average activation energy of an energy matching layer material. Additionally, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would choose the materials such that an absolute value of the third difference is less than the absolute value of the second difference. MPEP 2143(I)(G)
Regarding claim 5, Lam as in claim 4 fails to teach the absolute value of the third difference is less than 0.05 eV.
Regarding the absolute value of the third difference is less than 0.05 eV. Zuefle teaches organic semiconductors have characteristic activation energies in the range of 0.2-0.6eV (Abstract). Zuefle further teaches that the method presented can be applied to other materials to determine activation energies (Summary). This would allow for choosing materials what would be able to achieve high efficiencies due to good charge carrier injection (Introduction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the complexes used for the blue light-emitting doped material and the materials used for the energy level matching layer as Zuefle has identified the activation energies of the materials and their impact on good charge carrier injection as a result-effective variable. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the absolute value of the third difference being less than 0.05 eV, in order to achieve high efficiencies due to good charge injection, as taught by Zuefle. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed differences are for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed differences).
Regarding claim 10, Lam as modified in claim 1 teaches the energy level matching layer (Fig 3 not shown hole blocking layer, [0126]) comprises a hole blocking layer (Fig 3 not shown hole blocking layer, [0126]).
Regarding claim 14, Lam as modified by Zuefle in claim 1 teaches a side of the light- emitting layer (Fig 3 light-emitting layer 330, [0126]) facing away from the energy level matching layer (Fig 3 not shown hole blocking layer, [0126]) is arranged with: an energy level adjustment layer (Fig 3 not shown carrier blocking layer, [0126]) and a hole transport layer (Fig 3 hole transporting layer 340, [0126]) that are stacked (Fig 3).
Lam as modified by Zuefle in claim 1 fails to teach the energy level adjustment layer is disposed between the hole transport layer and the light- emitting layer; a fourth difference exists between an average activation energy of the hole transport layer and an average activation energy of the energy level adjustment layer, and a fifth difference exists between the average activation energy of the energy level adjustment layer and the average activation energy of the host material of the light-emitting layer.
Regarding the choice of placing the energy level adjustment layer between the hole transport layer and the light- emitting layer, this particular location would have been obvious to try. Lam teaches a
light-emitting device (Fig 3 OLED structure 300, [0126]). In pursing the OLED structure there are only two places for the energy adjustment layer: between the hole transport layer and the anode or between the hole transport layer and the light- emitting layer. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that, in order for the OLED to function properly, the energy adjustment layer should be between the hole transport layer and the light- emitting layer to facilitate carrier movement into the light-emitting layer. That is, "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421.
Regarding a fourth difference exists between an average activation energy of the hole transport layer and an average activation energy of the energy level adjustment layer, and a fifth difference exists between the average activation energy of the energy level adjustment layer and the average activation energy of the host material of the light-emitting layer. Zuefle teaches organic semiconductors have characteristic activation energies in the range of 0.2-0.6eV (Abstract). Zuefle further teaches that the method presented can be applied to other materials to determine activation energies (Summary). This would allow for choosing materials what would be able to achieve high efficiencies due to good charge carrier injection (Introduction). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would choose a hole transport layer material from Lam, apply the teachings of Zuefle to find a hole transport layer material whose average activation energy would create a fourth difference with an energy level adjustment layer material that had also had an average activation energy determined. Further, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would choose a host material of the light emitting layer from Lam and apply the teachings of Zuefle to find host material of the light-emitting layer whose average activation energy would create a fifth difference with an energy level adjustment layer material that had also had an average activation energy determined. MPEP 2143(I)(G)
Regarding claim 15, Lam as modified by Zuefle in claim 14 teaches the light-emitting layer (Fig 3 light-emitting layer 330, [0126]) is a blue light-emitting layer (Fig 2 shows the dopants used by Lam to emit blue, [0032]).
Lam and Zuefle fail to teach an absolute value of the fourth difference is greater than or equal to an absolute value of the fifth difference; the absolute value of the fourth difference is greater than or equal to 0.1 eV and less than or equal to 0.15 eV, and the absolute value of the fifth difference is greater than or equal to 0.05 eV and less than or equal to 0.1 eV.
Regarding the absolute value of the fourth difference is greater than or equal to 0.1 eV and less than or equal to 0.15 eV, and the absolute value of the fifth difference is greater than or equal to 0.05 eV and less than or equal to 0.1 eV. Zuefle teaches organic semiconductors have characteristic activation energies in the range of 0.2-0.6eV (Abstract). Zuefle further teaches that the method presented can be applied to other materials to determine activation energies (Summary). This would allow for choosing materials what would be able to achieve high efficiencies due to good charge carrier injection (Introduction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the materials used for the hole transport layer, energy level adjustment layer, and light-emitting layer as Zuefle has identified the activation energies of the materials and their impact on good charge carrier injection as a result-effective variable. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the absolute value of the fourth difference is greater than or equal to 0.1 eV and less than or equal to 0.15 eV, and the absolute value of the fifth difference is greater than or equal to 0.05 eV and less than or equal to 0.1 eV, in order to achieve high efficiencies due to good charge injection, as taught by Zuefle. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed differences are for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed differences).
Regarding an absolute value of the fourth difference is greater than or equal to an absolute value of the fifth difference. Once the materials for the fourth and fifth difference are chosen to have the appropriate average activation energies, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that any chosen absolute value of the fourth difference would be greater than or equal to a chosen absolute value of the fifth difference, as the chosen average activation energies would be within the ranges given for the fourth and fifth differences.
Regarding claim 16, Yam as modified by Zuefle in claim 15 teaches the blue light-emitting layer (Fig 3 light-emitting layer 330 as modified in claim 2, [0126]) comprises a blue light-emitting host material (host materials list, [0131]) and a blue light- emitting doped material (phosphorescent gold metal complex, [0131]).
Yam and Zuefle fails to teach a sixth difference exists between the average activation energy of the energy level adjustment layer and an average activation energy of the blue light-emitting doped material, and an absolute value of the sixth difference is less than the absolute value of the fifth difference; the absolute value of the sixth difference is less than 0.05 eV.
Regarding a sixth difference exists between the average activation energy of the energy level adjustment layer and an average activation energy of the blue light-emitting doped material. Zuefle teaches organic semiconductors have characteristic activation energies in the range of 0.2-0.6eV (Abstract). Zuefle further teaches that the method presented can be applied to other materials to determine activation energies (Summary). This would allow for choosing materials what would be able to achieve high efficiencies due to good charge carrier injection (Introduction). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would calculate the average activation energy of one of the phosphorescent gold metal complexes of Lam and choose one such that the average activation energy would create a sixth difference with an average activation energy of an energy level adjustment layer material. MPEP 2143(I)(G)
Regarding the absolute value of the sixth difference is less than 0.05 eV. Zuefle teaches organic semiconductors have characteristic activation energies in the range of 0.2-0.6eV (Abstract). Zuefle further teaches that the method presented can be applied to other materials to determine activation energies (Summary). This would allow for choosing materials what would be able to achieve high efficiencies due to good charge carrier injection (Introduction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the materials used for blue-light emitting doped material and the energy level adjustment layer as Zuefle has identified the activation energies of the materials and their impact on good charge carrier injection as a result-effective variable. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the absolute value of the sixth difference is less than 0.05 eV, in order to achieve high efficiencies due to good charge injection, as taught by Zuefle. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed difference are for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed difference).
Regarding an absolute value of the sixth difference is less than the absolute value of the fifth difference. Once the materials for the sixth difference are chosen to have the appropriate average activation energies, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that any chosen absolute value of the sixth difference would be less than a chosen absolute value of the fifth difference, as the chosen average activation energies would be within the ranges given for the fourth and fifth differences.
Regarding claim 21, Yam as modified by Zuefle in claim 1 teaches the electron transport layer (Fig 3 electron transport layer 320, [0126]) is stacked on top (electron transport layer is formed on top of hole blocking layer, [0176]-[0177]) of the energy level matching layer (Fig 3 not shown hole blocking layer, [0126]) and the energy matching layer (Fig 3 not shown hole blocking layer, [0126]) is stacked on top (hole blocking layer is formed on top of light-emitting layer, [0175]-[0176]) of the light-emitting layer (Fig 3 light-emitting layer 330, [0126]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument beginning at the bottom of page 9, filed March 11, 2026, with respect to a first point that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result-effective variable, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
There is no requirement that the prior art must recognize a particular parameter in order to choose that parameter as a result-effective variable.
Applicant's argument beginning on page 10, filed March 11, 2026, with respect to a second point of impermissible hindsight, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant's argument beginning at the bottom of page 10, filed March 11, 2026, with respect to the design of ranges, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The rationale was presented in the rejection for claim 1. Further, the rationale for optimization to arrive at the claimed ranges does not have to be the same as the Applicant.
Applicant's argument beginning at the bottom of page 11, filed March 11, 2026, with respect to the art teaching values outside of the claimed range, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The value the argument is based on is the combination of Zuefle and presented as an example for determination of activation energies. The ranges of the claim of the application would be optimized for a set of materials that would not necessarily be the same materials used by Zuefle.
Applicant's argument beginning at the bottom of page 12, filed March 11, 2026, with respect to the response to advisory action and the result effective variable response, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner has shown in the rejection for claim 1 that the art teaches activation energies within a particular range and the sire to improve performance. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in improving device performance, with the materials known would necessarily have a range to stay within due to manufacturing tolerances.
Furthermore, Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed differences are for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed differences).
Applicant's argument beginning at the bottom of page 13, filed March 11, 2026, with respect to the amendment to claim 1 incorporating claim 13, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner has shown in the rejection for claim 1 above, the materials used by Lam would result in a structure similar to that of the instant invention. This structure would necessarily have the same inherent characteristics of the instant invention. MPEP 2112.01(I) and 2114(I)
Conclusion
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN L LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5 pm (ET).
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, STEVEN GAUTHIER can be reached at (571)270-0373. 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.
/ALVIN L LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights