18DETAILED 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 Office acknowledges receipt on 10 August 2026 of Applicants’ amendments in which claims 1, 12, 15, and 17 are amended and claims 11, 13, and 16 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 10 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue in the penultimate paragraphs of page 8 and with respect to claim 1 (and similarly with respect to independent claims 12 and 15) that Li does not teach the subject matter newly added to claim 1 whereby “the refractive index of the first hole transport material and the refractive index of the second hole transport material is 0.1 or greater and less than 0.2.” More specifically, Applicants argue:
Li teaches that the difference in refractive index is between 0.2 and 0.6. (Li, para. [0039]). Li teaches that this difference enables the microcavity effect achieve enhanced light emission efficiency. (Id.).
Claim 1 is rejected over the combined teachings of Nakamura, Takada, and Li. Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. MPEP §2143.01. As this principle applies to the present circumstance, Li teaches in paragraph [0050] that the refractive index of each of two separated hole transport layers (each having a different refractive index, as acknowledged by Applicants immediately above), with respect to the refractive index of an adjacent layer, is a result-effective parameter for varying the transmittance and/or reflectivity of a Bragg lens structure formed by use of the two separated hole transport layers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakamura’s light-emitting device as modified by Takada and Li based on the further teachings of Li – such that a difference between the refractive index of the first hole transport material and the refractive index of the second hole transport material is 0.1 or greater and less than 0.2 – because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP §2144.05(II)(A).
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-10, 18 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US20210242419A1) in view of Takada (US20140155592A1) and Li et al. (CN112768613A).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura teaches in Fig. 1/3 a light-emitting device comprising:
a first electrode (12) {¶0019};
a second electrode (18) facing the first electrode (12) {¶0019};
m emitting parts (13, 15, 17) located between the first electrode (12) and the second electrode (18) {¶0019}; and
m−1 charge generation layers (14, 16) each located between two neighboring ones among the m emitting parts (13, 15, 17), and each including an n-type charge generation layer (141, 161) and a p-type charge generation layer (142, 162) {¶0019, 0024}, wherein
m is an integer of 2 or greater,
the m emitting parts (13, 15, 17) each include a hole transport region (131, 151, 171), an emission layer (132, 152, 172), and an electron transport region (133, 153, 173), disposed in sequence {¶0020-0033},
a first hole transport region (portion of a single HTL of 131 within a single EL device 1/2) included in a first emitting part (13) among the m emitting parts (13, 15, 17) includes a first hole transport layer (131) including a first hole transport material (implicit) {¶0021, 0022, 0194},
a second hole transport region (portion of a single HTL of 151 within a single EL device 1/2) included in a second emitting part (15) among the m emitting parts (13, 15, 17) includes a second hole transport layer (151) including a second hole transport material (implicit) {¶0021, 0022, 0194},
wherein the first hole transport region (portion of a single HTL of 131 within a single EL device 1/2) and the second hole transport region (portion of a single HTL of 151 within a single EL device 1/2), respectively, do not comprise alternating layers of materials with high and low refractive indices.
Nakamura does not teach wherein the first hole transport material comprises an aryl amine group containing compound, and wherein the second hole transport material comprises an aryl amine group-containing compound substituted with at least one C3-C30 carbocyclic Group.
In an analogous art, Takada teaches in Fig. 1 and paragraph [0012] a first hole transport material comprises an aryl amine group containing compound. Takada further teaches that an aryl amine group-containing compound may be substituted with at least one C3-C20 carbocyclic Group. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakamura’s light-emitting device based on the teachings of Takada – such that the first hole transport material comprises an aryl amine group containing compound, and the second hole transport material comprises an aryl amine group-containing compound substituted with at least one C3-C20 carbocyclic Group – to achieve an electroluminescence device having high efficiency and a long life span. Takada ¶0030. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., hole transport material, aryl amine group, C3-C20 carbocyclic Group) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Yoo) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I).
Nakamura does not expressly teach a refractive index of the first hole transport material is greater than a refractive index of the second hole transport material.
In an analogous art, Li teaches in Fig. 1 and paragraph [0039] the hole transport layer 1020a in the first light emitting unit 102a and the hole transport layer 1020b in the second light emitting unit 102b may be alternately arranged in a high refractive index and a low refractive index. Li further teaches in paragraph [0040] the hole transport sublayers with low refractive index have the same refractive index and material and the hole transport sublayers with high refractive index have the same refractive index and material. Accordingly, Li’s high-refractive-index hole transport layer material may be deemed to correspond to Applicants’ recited first hole transport material/region and Li’s low-refractive-index hole transport layer material may be deemed to correspond to Applicants’ recited second hole transport material/region. Li further teaches in paragraph [0044] that: (1) “the light-emitting layer 1022 is formed of an organic material, and the refractive index thereof may be larger than that of the hole transport sublayer 10200 that is most adjacent to the light-emitting layer 1022” and (2) “[i]n this design, light can also be partially transmitted and partially reflected at the interface between the light-emitting layer 1022 and the nearest neighboring hole-transporting sublayer 10200 to further enhance the microcavity effect.” In summary, Li teaches the differing refractive indices between each adjacent pair of EML and HTL layers reflect some light and refract other light and together the two adjacent pairs of EML and HTL layers create a microcavity effect, even in the absence of alternating adjacent HTL layers having different refractive indices. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakamura’s light-emitting device as modified by Takada based on the teachings of Li – such that Nakamura’s HTL 131 is modified by Li’s teaching regarding HTL 1020a/b and that Nakamura’s HTL 151 is modified by Li’s teaching regarding HTL 1020b/a to achieve a refractive index of the first hole transport material that is greater than a refractive index of the second hole transport material – so as to form the microcavity effect for the light emitting units and thereby enhance the light-emitting efficiency of the whole organic light-emitting device … and improve the color purity thereof. Li ¶0039.
Nakamura does not expressly teach a difference between the refractive index of the first hole transport material and the refractive index of the second hole transport material is 0.1 or greater and less than 0.2.
Li teaches in paragraph [0050] that the refractive index of each of two separated hole transport layers (each having a different refractive index, as discussed immediately above), with respect to the refractive index of an adjacent layer, is a result-effective parameter for varying the transmittance and/or reflectivity of a Bragg lens structure formed by use of the two separated hole transport layers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakamura’s light-emitting device as modified by Takada and Li based on the further teachings of Li – such that a difference between the refractive index of the first hole transport material and the refractive index of the second hole transport material is 0.1 or greater and less than 0.2 – because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP §2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 2, Nakamura as modified by Takada and Li teaches the light-emitting device of claim 1, and Nakamura further teaches wherein a maximum emission wavelength of light emitted from at least one of the m emitting parts (13, 15, 17) is different from a maximum emission wavelength of light emitted from at least one of remaining emitting parts (13, 15, 17) of the emitting parts (13, 15, 17) {¶0114}.
Regarding claim 3, Nakamura as modified by Takada and Li teaches the light-emitting device of claim 1, and Nakamura further teaches wherein a maximum emission wavelength of light emitted from each of the m emitting parts (13, 15, 17) is equal to each other {¶0114}.
Regarding claim 4, Nakamura as modified by Takada and Li teaches the light-emitting device of claim 1, but Nakamura does not expressly teach wherein a thickness of the first hole transport region and a thickness of the second hole transport region are equal to each other.
However, Nakamura teaches in Fig. 3 and paragraph [0273] that a thickness (d12, d22 and d32 in FIG. 3) of the second hole transporting layer of each hole transporting zone is each independently preferably … from 5 nm to 15 nm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakamura’s light-emitting device as modified by Takada and Li based on the further teachings of Nakamura – such that a thickness of the first hole transport region and a thickness of the second hole transport region are equal to each other – because [i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 5, Nakamura as modified by Takada and Li teaches the light-emitting device of claim 1, and Nakamura further teaches wherein:
the first hole transport region (portion of a single HTL of 131 within a single EL device 1/2) directly contacts the first electrode (12) {¶0068}, and/or
the second hole transport region (portion of a single HTL of 151 within a single EL device 1/2) directly contacts the p-type charge generation layer (142, 162) of a first charge generation layer (14), the first charge generation layer being located between the first emitting part and the second emitting part (15) {Fig. 1/3}.
Regarding claim 6, Nakamura as modified by Takada and Li teaches the light-emitting device of claim 1, and Nakamura further teaches wherein
the first electrode (12) is an anode {¶0019},
the second electrode (18) is a cathode {¶0019},
the hole transport region (131, 151, 171) includes at least one of a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer (131, 151, 171), an emission auxiliary layer, and an electron blocking layer {¶0020-0033}, and
the electron transport region (133, 153, 173) includes at least one of a buffer layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron control layer, an electron transport layer (133, 153, 173), and an electron injection layer {¶0020-0033}.
Regarding claim 8, Nakamura as modified by Takada and Li teaches the light-emitting device of claim 1, but Nakamura does not expressly teach wherein a thickness of the first hole transport layer and a thickness of the second hole transport layer are equal to each other.
However, Nakamura teaches in Fig. 3 and paragraph [0273] that a thickness (d12, d22 and d32 in FIG. 3) of the second hole transporting layer of each hole transporting zone is each independently preferably … from 5 nm to 15 nm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakamura’s light-emitting device as modified by Takada and Li based on the further teachings of Nakamura – such that a thickness of the first hole transport region and a thickness of the second hole transport region are equal to each other – because [i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 9, Nakamura as modified by Takada and Li teaches the light-emitting device of claim 1, and Nakamura further teaches wherein:
the first hole transport layer (131) directly contacts the first electrode (12) {¶0068}, and/or
the second hole transport layer (151) directly contacts the p-type charge generation layer (142) of a first charge generation layer (14) of the m−1 charge generation layers (14, 16), the first charge generation layer (14) being located between the first emitting part (13) and the second emitting part (15) {Fig. 1/3}.
Regarding claim 10, Nakamura as modified by Takada and Li teaches the light-emitting device of claim 1, but Nakamura does not expressly teach wherein
a refractive index of the first hole transport material is about 1.8 or greater and about 2.8 or less, and
a refractive index of the second hole transport material is about 1.5 or greater and about 2.5 or less.
Li teaches in paragraph [0031] that the first hole transport layer may have a refractive index between 1.7 and 2.2 and the second first hole transport layer may have a refractive index between 1.5 and 1.8. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakamura’s light-emitting device as modified by Takada and Li based on the further teachings of Nakamura – such that a refractive index of the first hole transport material is about 1.8 or greater and about 2.8 or less, and a refractive index of the second hole transport material is about 1.5 or greater and about 2.5 or less – because [i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 18, Nakamura as modified by Takada and Li teaches an electronic apparatus including the light-emitting device (1) of claim 1 {¶0063}.
Regarding claim 22, Nakamura as modified by Takada and Li teaches the light-emitting device of claim 1, but Nakamura does not teach wherein the first hole transport region is free from the second hole transport material and the second hole transport region is free from the first hole transport material.
Li teaches in Fig. 1 and paragraph [0030], and similarly in paragraphs [0040, 0050], hole transport layer 1020 includes a first hole transport sublayer HTL1 and a second hole transport sublayer HTL2 that are alternately disposed in sequence in the stacking direction, that is, the hole transport layer 1020 is formed by only two hole transport materials with different refractive indexes that are alternately disposed in sequence and stacked in sequence. In paragraph [0040], Li teaches that all hole transport layers having a low refractive index have the same material and all hole transport layers having a high refractive index have the same material. Therefore, Li teaches a first hole transport region (e.g., HTL1/HTL2) is free from a second hole transport material (e.g., material of HTL2/HTL1) and a second hole transport region (e.g., HTL2/HTL2) is free from a first hole transport material (e.g., material of HTL1/HTL2). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakamura’s light-emitting device as modified by Takada and Li based on the further teachings of Li – such that Nakamura’s HTL 131 is modified by Li’s teaching regarding HTL 1020a/b and that Nakamura’s HTL 151 is modified by Li’s teaching regarding HTL 1020b/a to achieve a refractive index of the first hole transport material that is greater than a refractive index of the second hole transport material – so as to form the microcavity effect for the light emitting units and thereby enhance the light-emitting efficiency of the whole organic light-emitting device … and improve the color purity thereof. Li ¶0039.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Takada and Li as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Shin et al. (US20220199909A1).
Regarding claim 19, Nakamura as modified by Takada and Li teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 18, but Nakamura does not teach further comprising:
a thin-film transistor, wherein
the thin-film transistor includes a source electrode and a drain electrode, and
the first electrode of the light-emitting device is electrically connected to the source electrode or the drain electrode.
In an analogous art, Shin teaches in Fig. 2:
a thin-film transistor (Tr) {¶0028}, wherein
the thin-film transistor (Tr) includes a source electrode (140) and a drain electrode (142) {¶0041}, and
the first electrode (160) of the light-emitting device (D) is electrically connected to the source electrode or the drain electrode (142) {¶0041}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakamura’s light-emitting device as modified by Takada and Li based on the teachings of Shin – such that a thin-film transistor, wherein the thin-film transistor includes a source electrode and a drain electrode, and the first electrode of the light-emitting device is electrically connected to the source electrode or the drain electrode – because [t]he TFT … serves as a driving element for the light-emitting device. Shin ¶0041.
Regarding claim 20, Nakamura as modified by Takada and Li teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 18, but Nakamura does not teach further comprising:
at least one of a color filter, a color conversion layer, a touch screen layer, and a polarizing layer.
Shin teaches in Fig. 4 a color filter (380). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakamura’s light-emitting device as modified by Takada and Li based on the teachings of Shin – so as to include at least one of a color filter, a color conversion layer, a touch screen layer, and a polarizing layer – so that the color purity of the organic light emitting display device … may be further improved. Shin ¶0218.
Claim(s) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of Yoo et al. (US20170154931A1) and Li.
Regarding claim 12, Shin teaches in Figs. 4 and 5 a light-emitting device comprising:
first electrodes (360) arranged according to a first subpixel (RP), a second subpixel (GP), and a third subpixel (BP), respectively {¶0148};
a second electrode (364) facing the first electrodes (360) {¶0151};
m emitting parts (410, 430) located between the first electrodes (360) and the second electrode (364) {¶0150, 0151}; and
m−1 charge generation layers (450) each located between two neighboring ones among the m emitting parts (410, 430), and each including an n-type charge generation layer (452) and a p-type charge generation layer (454) {¶0160}, wherein
m is an integer of 2 or greater,
the m emitting parts (410, 430) each include a hole transport region (424, 440), an emission layer (416, 432), and an electron transport region (418, 434), disposed in sequence {¶0160, 0153, 0156},
the emission layer (416, 432) includes a first emission layer (first layer of 432) located in the first subpixel (e.g., RP) and emitting first-color light (e.g., red), a second emission layer (second layer of 432) located in the second subpixel (e.g., GP) and emitting second-color light (e.g., green), and a third emission layer (416) located in the third subpixel (e.g., BP) and emitting third-color light (e.g., blue) {¶0133, 0148, 0158},
a first hole transport region (portion 424 within a single OLED D) included in a first emitting part (410) among the m emitting parts (410, 430) includes a first hole transport layer (424) including a first hole transport material (implicit) {¶0150},
a second hole transport region (portion 440 within a single OLED D) included in a second emitting part (430) among the m emitting parts (410, 430) includes a second hole transport layer (440) including a second hole transport material (implicit) {¶0150},
wherein the first hole transport region (portion 424 within a single OLED D) and the second hole transport region (portion 440 within a single OLED D), respectively, do not comprise alternating layers of materials with high and low refractive indices.
Shin does not teach wherein the first hole transport region is a common layer to the first subpixel, the second subpixel, and the third subpixel, and wherein the second hole transport region is a common layer to the first subpixel, the second subpixel, and the third subpixel.
In an analogous art, Yoo teaches in the sole figure and paragraph [0038] a hole transport region (201) is a common layer to a first subpixel, a second subpixel, and a third subpixel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin’s light-emitting device based on the teachings of Yoo – such that each of the first hole transport region and the second hole transport region is a common layer to the first subpixel, the second subpixel, and the third subpixel – to reduce manufacturing resources (e.g., manufacturing operations, materials, time, etc.). Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., hole transport region, common layer, first, second, and third subpixels) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Yoo) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Shin does not teach a refractive index of the first hole transport material is greater than a refractive index of the second hole transport material.
Li teaches in Fig. 1 and paragraph [0039] the hole transport layer 1020a in the first light emitting unit 102a and the hole transport layer 1020b in the second light emitting unit 102b may be alternately arranged in a high refractive index and a low refractive index. Li further teaches in paragraph [0040] the hole transport sublayers with low refractive index have the same refractive index and material and the hole transport sublayers with high refractive index have the same refractive index and material. Accordingly, Li’s high-refractive-index hole transport layer material may be deemed to correspond to Applicants’ recited first hole transport material and Li’s low-refractive-index hole transport layer material may be deemed to correspond to Applicants’ recited second hole transport material. Li further teaches in paragraph [0044] that: (1) “the light-emitting layer 1022 is formed of an organic material, and the refractive index thereof may be larger than that of the hole transport sublayer 10200 that is most adjacent to the light-emitting layer 1022” and (2) “[i]n this design, light can also be partially transmitted and partially reflected at the interface between the light-emitting layer 1022 and the nearest neighboring hole-transporting sublayer 10200 to further enhance the microcavity effect.” In summary, Li teaches the differing refractive indices between each adjacent pair of EML and HTL layers reflect some light and refract other light and together the two adjacent pairs of EML and HTL layers create a microcavity effect, even in the absence of alternating adjacent HTL layers having different refractive indices. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin’s light-emitting device as modified by Yoo based on the teachings of Li – such that Shin’s HTL 424 is modified by Li’s teaching regarding HTL 1020a/b and that Shin’s HTL 440 is modified by Li’s teaching regarding HTL 1020b/a to achieve a refractive index of the first hole transport material is greater than a refractive index of the second hole transport material – so as to form the microcavity effect for the light emitting units and thereby enhance the light-emitting efficiency of the whole organic light-emitting device … and improve the color purity thereof. Li ¶0039.
Shin does not expressly teach a difference between the refractive index of the first hole transport material and the refractive index of the second hole transport material is 0.1 or greater and less than 0.2.
Li teaches in paragraph [0050] that the refractive index of each of two separated hole transport layers (each having a different refractive index, as discussed immediately above), with respect to the refractive index of an adjacent layer, is a result-effective parameter for varying the transmittance and/or reflectivity of a Bragg lens structure formed by use of the two separated hole transport layers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin’s light-emitting device as modified by Yoo and Li based on the further teachings of Li – such that a difference between the refractive index of the first hole transport material and the refractive index of the second hole transport material is 0.1 or greater and less than 0.2 – because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP §2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 14, Shin as modified by Yoo and Li teaches the light-emitting device of claim 12, and Shin further teaches wherein
the first-color light is red light,
The second-color light is green light, and
the third-color light is blue light {¶0133, 0148, 0158}.
Claim(s) 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of Nakamura, Yoo, and Li.
Regarding claim 15, Shin teaches in Figs. 3, 4, and 6 a light-emitting device comprising:
first electrodes (360) arranged according to a first subpixel (RP), a second subpixel (GP), and a third subpixel (BP), respectively {Figs. 3, 4;¶0148};
a second electrode (364) facing the first electrodes (360) {Figs. 3, 4;¶0151}; and
m emitting parts (510, 530, 550) located between the first electrodes (360) and the second electrode (364) {Fig. 6; ¶0177}; and
m−1 charge generation layers (570, 580) each located between two neighboring ones among the m emitting parts (510, 530, 550) {Fig. 6; ¶0177}, and each including an n-type charge generation layer (572, 582) and a p-type charge generation layer (574, 584) { Fig. 6; ¶0191, 0192}, wherein
m is an integer of 2 or greater,
the m emitting parts (510, 530, 550) each include a hole transport region (524, 540, 560) an emission layer (516, 534, 552), and an electron transport region (518, 536, 554), disposed in sequence {¶0177, 0180, 0183, 0186, 0203},
the emission layer includes:
a first emission layer (362) located in the first subpixel (RP) and emitting first-color light (e.g., red) {¶0135};
a second emission layer (362) located in the second subpixel (GP) and emitting second-color light (e.g., green) {¶0135}; and
a third emission layer (362) located in the third subpixel (BP) and emitting third-color light (e.g., blue) {¶0135}.
Shin does not teach an auxiliary layer disposed between a hole transport region and an emission layer, wherein the auxiliary layer includes:
a first auxiliary layer located in the first subpixel and between the hole transport region and the first emission layer;
a second auxiliary layer located in the second subpixel and between the hole transport region and the second emission layer; and
a third auxiliary layer located in the third subpixel and between the hole transport region and the third emission layer,
the first auxiliary layer included in a first emitting part among the m emitting parts includes a first first auxiliary layer, a second first auxiliary layer, and a third first auxiliary layer,
the second auxiliary layer included in a second emitting part among the m emitting parts includes a first second auxiliary layer, a second second auxiliary layer, and a third second auxiliary layer,
the first first auxiliary layer, the second first auxiliary layer, and the third first auxiliary layer each independently include a first hole transport material throughout,
the first second auxiliary layer, the second second auxiliary layer, and the third second auxiliary layer each independently include a second hole transport material throughout, and
wherein the first auxiliary layer and the second auxiliary layer, respectively, do not comprise alternating layers of materials with high and low refractive indices.
Nakamura teaches in Fig. 3 an auxiliary layer (131B, 151B, 171B) disposed between each hole transport region (131A, 151A, 171A) and emission layer (132, 152, 172) {¶0113, 0271, 0272, 0540};
the auxiliary layer (131B, 151B, 171B) includes:
a first auxiliary layer (131B) located in the subpixel (2) and between the hole transport (131A) region and the first emission layer (132) {¶0113, 0272};
a second auxiliary layer (151B) located in the subpixel (2) and between the hole transport region (151A) and the second emission layer (152) {¶0113, 0271}; and
a third auxiliary layer (171B) located in the subpixel (2) and between the hole transport region (171A) and the third emission layer (172) {¶0113, 0270},
the first auxiliary layer (131B) included in a first emitting part (13A) includes a first first auxiliary layer (131B) {¶0272},
the second auxiliary layer (151B) included in a second emitting part (15A) includes a first second auxiliary layer (151B) {¶0271},
the first first auxiliary layer (131B) includes a first hole transport material throughout {¶0270-0272},
the first second auxiliary layer (151B) includes a second hole transport material throughout {¶0270-0272},
wherein the first auxiliary layer (131B) and the second auxiliary layer (151B), respectively, do not comprise alternating layers of materials with high and low refractive indices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin’s light-emitting device based on the teachings of Nakamura – such that Nakamura’s auxiliary layer described immediately above is disposed within each of Shin’s first subpixel (RP), second subpixel (GP), and third subpixel (BP); the auxiliary layer including: a first auxiliary layer located in the first subpixel and between the hole transport region and the first emission layer; a second auxiliary layer located in the second subpixel and between the hole transport region and the second emission layer; and a third auxiliary layer located in the third subpixel and between the hole transport region and the third emission layer, the first auxiliary layer included in a first emitting part among the m emitting parts includes a first first auxiliary layer, a second first auxiliary layer, and a third first auxiliary layer, the second auxiliary layer included in a second emitting part among the m emitting parts includes a first second auxiliary layer, a second second auxiliary layer, and a third second auxiliary layer, the first first auxiliary layer, the second first auxiliary layer, and the third first auxiliary layer each independently include a first hole transport material throughout, the first second auxiliary layer, the second second auxiliary layer, and the third second auxiliary layer each independently include a second hole transport material throughout, wherein the first auxiliary layer and the second auxiliary layer, respectively, do not comprise alternating layers of materials with high and low refractive indices – so that deterioration of an interface between the hole transporting layer and the third emitting layer can be reduced … [and] a lifetime of the organic EL device is likely to be more improved. Nakamura ¶0260. A consequence of this modification is that Nakamura’s sequenced structure of a first hole transporting layer, a second hole transporting layer (e.g. auxiliary layer), and emitting layer is applied to each of the m emitting parts of each of Shin’s three sub-pixels RP, GP, BP. Accordingly, Nakamura’s first first auxiliary layer (131B) applied to Shin’s sub-pixel (RP) has a corresponding second first auxiliary layer (131B) for Shins’ second sub-pixel (GP) and a corresponding third first auxiliary layer (131B) for Shins’ third sub-pixel (BP). Similarly, Nakamura’s first second auxiliary layer (151B) applied to Shins’ sub-pixel (RP) has a corresponding a second second auxiliary layer (151B) for Shins’ second sub-pixel (GP) and a corresponding third second auxiliary layer (151B) for Shins’ third sub-pixel (BP).
Shin does not teach the hole transport region of each of the m emitting parts is a common layer to the first subpixel, the second subpixel, and the third subpixel.
Yoo teaches in the sole figure and paragraph [0038] a hole transport region (201) is a common layer to a first subpixel, a second subpixel, and a third subpixel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin’s light-emitting device as modified by Nakamura based on the teachings of Yoo – such that the hole transport region of each of the m emitting parts is a common layer to the first subpixel, the second subpixel, and the third subpixel – to reduce manufacturing resources (e.g., manufacturing operations, materials, time, etc.). Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., hole transport region, common layer, first, second, and third subpixels) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Yoo) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Shin does not teach a refractive index of the first hole transport material is greater than a refractive index of the second hole transport material.
Li teaches in Fig. 1 and paragraph [0039] the hole transport layer 1020a in the first light emitting unit 102a and the hole transport layer 1020b in the second light emitting unit 102b may be alternately arranged in a high refractive index and a low refractive index. Li further teaches in paragraph [0040] the hole transport sublayers with low refractive index have the same refractive index and material and the hole transport sublayers with high refractive index have the same refractive index and material. Accordingly, Li’s high-refractive-index hole transport layer material may be deemed to correspond to Applicants’ recited first hole transport material and Li’s low-refractive-index hole transport layer material may be deemed to correspond to Applicants’ recited second hole transport material. Li further teaches in paragraph [0044] that: (1) “the light-emitting layer 1022 is formed of an organic material, and the refractive index thereof may be larger than that of the hole transport sublayer 10200 that is most adjacent to the light-emitting layer 1022” and (2) “[i]n this design, light can also be partially transmitted and partially reflected at the interface between the light-emitting layer 1022 and the nearest neighboring hole-transporting sublayer 10200 to further enhance the microcavity effect.” In summary, Li teaches the differing refractive indices between each adjacent pair of EML and HTL layers reflect some light and refract other light and together the two adjacent pairs of EML and HTL layers create a microcavity effect, even in the absence of alternating adjacent HTL layers having different refractive indices. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin’s light-emitting device as modified by Nakamura and Yoo based on the teachings of Li – such that Nakamura’s HTL 131 is modified by Li’s teaching regarding HTL 1020a/b and that Nakamura’s HTL 151 is modified by Li’s teaching regarding HTL 1020b/a to achieve a refractive index of the first hole transport material is greater than a refractive index of the second hole transport material – so as to form the microcavity effect for the light emitting units and thereby enhance the light-emitting efficiency of the whole organic light-emitting device … and improve the color purity thereof. Li ¶0039.
Shin does not teach a difference between the refractive index of the first hole transport material and the refractive index of the second hole transport material is 0.1 or greater and less than 0.2.
Li teaches in paragraph [0050] that the refractive index of each of two separated hole transport layers (each having a different refractive index, as discussed immediately above), with respect to the refractive index of an adjacent layer, is a result-effective parameter for varying the transmittance and/or reflectivity of a Bragg lens structure formed by use of the two separated hole transport layers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin’s light-emitting device as modified by Nakamura, Yoo, and Li based on the further teachings of Li – such that a difference between the refractive index of the first hole transport material and the refractive index of the second hole transport material is 0.1 or greater and less than 0.2 – because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP §2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 17, Shin as modified by Nakamura, Yoo, and Li teaches the light-emitting device of claim 15, but Shin does not teach wherein
a thickness of the first first auxiliary layer and a thickness of the first second auxiliary layer are equal to each other,
a thickness of the second first auxiliary layer and a thickness of the second second auxiliary layer are equal to each other, and
a thickness of the third first auxiliary layer and a thickness of the third second auxiliary layer are equal to each other.
Nakamura teaches in Fig. 3 and paragraph [0274] that a thickness (d12) of the first auxiliary layer (131B) and a thickness (d22) of the second auxiliary layer (151B) are each preferably in a range of 5 nm to 15 nm. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I).
Conclusion
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 DAVID WARD whose telephone number is (703)756-1382. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571)-272-1731. 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.
/D.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2891
/MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights