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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 01/06/2026. These drawings are accepted.
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.
Claims 1, 5-6, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2019/0131557 A1; hereinafter “Lee”) in view of Kimoto (US 2022/0285646 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a light emitting device, wherein the light emitting device comprises: a light emitting area (an emissive layer 130), wherein the light emitting area comprises an inorganic electron transporting layer (a second electron transport layer 164b formed of an inorganic material), an organic electron transporting layer (a first electron transport layer 164a formed of an organic material) and a quantum-dot layer (an EML 150 including quantum dots) that are arranged sequentially in layer configuration (Fig. 2 and paragraph 28-29 and 39-62); and an absolute value of a difference between an energy value of a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital of the inorganic electron transporting layer and an energy value of a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital of the organic electron transporting layer is less than or equal to a preset value; wherein the preset value is 0.1 eV-0.4 eV (Fig. 3 and paragraphs 61-63 and 72-80. For example, it is noted that 164a formed of BCP is the identical material choice to that of the invention (i.e., claim 9 reciting “a material of the organic electron transporting layer comprises HATCN, BPhen or BCP”) and 164b formed of zinc oxide is the identical material choice to that of the invention (i.e., claim 11 reciting “a material of the inorganic electron transporting layer includes any one or more of zinc oxide”). As such, an absolute value of a difference between 164a formed of BCP having a LUMO value and 164b formed of zinc oxide (ZnO) having a LUMO/CBM value would be also within the claimed preset value of 0.1 eV-0.4 eV since the identical material choices would have the identical material properties).
Lee does not explicitly teach that 1) the light emitting device comprising: a plurality of light emitting areas that are arranged in an array, and non-light emitting areas between neighboring light emitting areas and 2) the thickness of the organic electron transporting layer is less than the thickness of the inorganic electron transporting layer.
Regarding 1) the light emitting device comprising: a plurality of light emitting areas that are arranged in an array, and non-light emitting areas between neighboring light emitting areas, Kimoto teaches a light emitting device (a display device 2), comprising: a plurality of light emitting areas (5R, 5G, and 5B as subpixels SP) that are arranged in an array, and non-light emitting areas (areas having 23) between neighboring light emitting areas in order to provide the light emitting device having a pixel array structure with subpixels defined by pixel definition areas (Fig. 1 and paragraph 58-80). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Lee with that of Kimoto in order to provide the light emitting device having the pixel array structure with the subpixels defined by the pixel definition areas.
Regarding 2) the thickness of the organic electron transporting layer is less than the thickness of the inorganic electron transporting layer, it is noted that the instant application contains no critical nature of the claimed thickness of the organic electron transporting layer is less than the thickness of the inorganic electron transporting layer (for example, see paragraph 9 disclosing “Optionally, the thicknesses of the organic electron transporting layer is less than the thickness of the inorganic electron transporting layer”. It is also noted that Lee teaches a thickness of an electron transport layer ETL 164 including 164a and 164b is about 10 nm to about 100 nm (Fig. 2 and paragraph 86). Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the thicknesses of the organic electron transporting layer (164a) and/or the inorganic electron transporting layer (164b) as a routine experimentation in the art (including the thickness adjustment such that the thickness of the organic electron transporting layer is less than the thickness of the inorganic electron transporting layer as claimed) for obtaining the overall desired thickness range of about 10 nm to about 100 nm for the electron transporting layer 164 from Lee with predictable electron transporting characteristics. It has held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 5-6, Lee teaches wherein an interface roughness of the organic electron transporting layer is greater than or equal to an interface roughness of the inorganic electron transporting layer (for claim 5) and wherein an electron transport rate of the organic electron transporting layer is less than an electron transport rate of the inorganic electron transporting layer (for claim 6) (Since Lee teaches the identical material choices for the organic electron transporting layer and the inorganic electron transporting layer as discussed above for the rejection of claim 1, property/function of the organic electron transporting layer and the inorganic electron transporting layer would be also identical: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches wherein a material of the organic electron transporting layer comprises HATCN, BPhen or BCP (paragraph 79).
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches wherein the light emitting device further comprises a substrate (310), and the inorganic electron transporting layer is disposed on the substrate (Figs. 2 and 6 and paragraphs 120-127). While Lee in view of Kimoto does not explicitly teach a thickness of the organic electron transporting layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the thickness of the organic electron transporting layer as a routine skill in the art, including the adjustment such that the thickness is 0.5-60 nm as claimed, in order to obtain the desired thickness having electron transporting characteristics.
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches wherein a material of the inorganic electron transporting layer includes any one or more of zinc oxide, zirconium oxide, aluminum oxide, magnesium zinc oxide and magnesium sodium oxide (paragraph 80).
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches wherein each of the light emitting areas further comprises a cathode (120), and a hole transporting layer (144), a hole injection layer (142) and an anode (110) that are arranged sequentially in layer configuration on the quantum-dot layer (Fig. 2 and paragraphs 28-33); wherein the cathode is disposed on one side of the inorganic electron transporting layer that is away from the organic electron transporting layer (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches a display device, wherein the display device comprises the light emitting device according to claim 1 (Fig. 6 and paragraph 120).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kimoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harikrishna Mohan et al. (US 2014/0065750 A1; hereinafter “Mohan”).
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Kimoto does not explicitly teach that the light emitting areas comprise a first light emitting area and a second light emitting area, and thicknesses of the organic electron transporting layers within the first light emitting area and the second light emitting area are unequal. Mohan teaches a light emitting device, comprising: light emitting areas comprising a first light emitting area (410) and a second light emitting area (420), and thicknesses electron transporting layers (ETL) within the first light emitting area and the second light emitting area are unequal in order to optimize the color purity and/or optical outcoupling efficiency of light from the first, second and/or third sets of sub-pixels (Fig. 4 and paragraph 104 and 113-114). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Lee in view of Kimoto with that of Mohan in order to optimize the color purity and/or optical outcoupling efficiency of light from the pixels.
Regarding claim 8, Lee in view of Mohan teaches wherein the light emitting areas further comprise a third light emitting area (430), and a thickness of the organic electron transporting layer within the third light emitting area (a thickness of ETL in 430) is unequal to a thickness of the organic electron transporting layer within at least one of the first light emitting area and the second light emitting area (Lee, Fig. 2 for teaching the organic electron transporting layer and Mohan, Fig. 4 for teaching different thicknesses of ETL in 410-430).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims have been considered but are moot in view of new/different ground of rejections as set forth above in this Office Action.
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 DANIEL B WHALEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3418. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8AM-5PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571)272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL WHALEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893