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 .
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.
Status of the application
This office Action is in response to Applicant's Application filled on 10/07/2025. Claims 1-15 are pending for this examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed on 11/16/2022.
Oath/Declaration
The oath or declaration filed on 09/26/2022 is acceptable.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of species I (Fig. [1]): claims 1-6, 8, 10-12 and 14 in the reply filed on 10/07/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.03(a)). The election is without traverse because the response is incomplete.
This office action considers claims 1-15 pending for prosecution, wherein claims 7, 9, 13 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration, and 1-6, 8, 10-12 and 14 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by HONG et al (US 2021/0119141 A1; hereafter HONG).
PNG
media_image1.png
460
525
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1. HONG discloses a light emitting element comprising:
a pair of electrodes (Fig. [6], first and second electrodes 310 and 330, Para [ 0108]); and
a first organic layer (Fig. [6], EBL 365, construed as first organic layer, Para [ 0122]) and a second organic layer (Fig. [6], EML 340, Para [0105, 0114-0122]) adjacent to the first organic layer (Fig. [6], EBL 365, construed as first organic layer, Para [ 0122]) between the pair of electrodes (Fig. [6], first and second electrodes 310 and 330, Para [ 0108]), wherein the first organic layer comprises a first organic material (Fig. [6], EBL 365, construed as first organic layer, Para [ 0122]), the second organic layer comprises a second organic material (Fig. [6], EML 340, Para [0105, 0114-0122]),
the second organic layer comprises a first region (layer 342, Para [0105, 0114-0122]) and a second region (layer 344, Para [0105, 0114-0122]), and
the first region (layer 342, Para [0105, 0114-0122]) is in contact with the first organic layer (Fig. [6], EBL 365, construed as first organic layer, Para [ 0122]) and comprises the first organic material (Fig. [6], EBL 365, construed as first organic layer, Para [ 0122] discloses “host of the first EML 342 may be same as a material of the EBL 365”).
Regarding claim 14. HONG discloses the light emitting element according to claim 1, HONG further discloses wherein the second organic layer is a light emitting layer (Fig. [6], EML 340, Para [0105, 0114-0122]).
Claim Rejection- 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 of this title, 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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HONG et al (US 2021/0119141 A1; hereafter HONG) as applied claims above and further in view of YE (US 2020/0411789 A1; hereafter YE) and further in view of LI et al (US 2020/0266375 A1; hereafter LI).
Regarding claim 2. HONG discloses the light emitting element according to claim 1, But, HONG does not disclose explicitly wherein the first organic material has a higher hole transport property than an electron transport property, and an absolute value of a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) level of the first organic layer is smaller than an absolute value of a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) level of the second organic layer.
In a similar field of endeavor, YE discloses wherein the first organic material has a higher hole transport property than an electron transport property (Para [0012] discloses “first electron blocking layer, the first light-emitting layer, the second electron blocking layer, and the second light-emitting layer is made of material having a hole transport rate greater than an electron transport rate).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine HONG in light of YE teaching “wherein the first organic material has a higher hole transport property than an electron transport property (Para [0012] discloses “first electron blocking layer, the first light-emitting layer, the second electron blocking layer, and the second light-emitting layer is made of material having a hole transport rate greater than an electron transport rate)” for further advantage such as enhance carrier mobility and improve device performance.
But HONG and YE does not disclose explicitly an absolute value of a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) level of the first organic layer is smaller than an absolute value of a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) level of the second organic layer.
In a similar field of endeavor, LI discloses an absolute value of a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) level of the first organic layer is smaller than an absolute value of a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) level of the second organic layer (Para [0014, 0074]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine HONG and YE in light of LI teaching “an absolute value of a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) level of the first organic layer is smaller than an absolute value of a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) level of the second organic layer (Para [0014, 0074])” for further advantage such as excellent long-term reliability is obtained since it is easy to control electrical characteristics.
Regarding claim 3. HONG and YE in light of LI discloses the light emitting element according to claim 2, LI further discloses wherein an absolute value of a difference between the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) level of the first organic layer and the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) level of the second organic layer is greater than or equal to 0.2 eV (Para [0014, 0074]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine HONG and YE in light of LI teaching “wherein an absolute value of a difference between the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) level of the first organic layer and the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) level of the second organic layer is greater than or equal to 0.2 eV (Para [0014, 0074])” for further advantage such as excellent long-term reliability is obtained since it is easy to control electrical characteristics.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HONG et al (US 2021/0119141 A1; hereafter HONG) as applied claims above and further in view of YOU (US 2018/0375047 A1; hereafter YOU).
Regarding claim 4. HONG discloses the light emitting element according to claim 1, But HONG does not disclose explicitly wherein the second organic material has a higher electron transport property than a hole transport property.
In a similar field of endeavor, YOU disclose wherein the second organic material has a higher electron transport property than a hole transport property (Para [ 0033).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine HONG in light of YOU teaching “an absolute value of a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) level of the first organic layer is smaller than an absolute value of a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) level of the second organic layer (Para [0014, 0074])” for further advantage such as which improves the light emitting efficiency of each light emitting layer.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HONG et al (US 2021/0119141 A1; hereafter HONG) as applied claims above and further in view of Yamamoto et al (US 2020/0106040 A1; hereafter Yamamoto).
Regarding claim 5. HONG discloses the light emitting element according to claim 1, But HONG does not disclose explicitly wherein a film thickness of the first region is greater than 0% and less than or equal to 40% of a film thickness of the second organic layer.
In a similar field of endeavor, Yamamoto disclose wherein a film thickness of the first region is greater than 0% and less than or equal to 40% of a film thickness of the second organic layer (Fig. [5], emissive stack Red EML/ Green EML, different thickness, Para [ 0059-0060]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine HONG in light of Yamamoto teaching “wherein a film thickness of the first region is greater than 0% and less than or equal to 40% of a film thickness of the second organic layer (Fig. [5], emissive stack Red EML/ Green EML, different thickness, Para [ 0059-0060])” for further advantage such as to provide emissive stacks exhibit significantly improved color stability (Yamamoto, Para [ 0059-0060]).
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HONG et al (US 2021/0119141 A1; hereafter HONG) as applied claims above and further in view of Adamovich et al (US 2017/0338432 A1; hereafter Adamovich).
Regarding claim 6. HONG discloses the light emitting element according to claim 1, But HONG does not disclose explicitly wherein a concentration of the first organic material in the first region is less than or equal to 20% by weight with respect to the second organic material.
In a similar field of endeavor, Adamovich discloses wherein a concentration of the first organic material in the first region is less than or equal to 20% by weight with respect to the second organic material (Fig. [3], emissive stack EML2/ EML1, different concentration, claim 18, Para [ 0016]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine HONG in light of Adamovich teaching “wherein a concentration of the first organic material in the first region is less than or equal to 20% by weight with respect to the second organic material (Fig. [3], emissive stack EML2/ EML1, different concentration, claim 18, Para [ 0016])” for further advantage such as to provide emissive stacks exhibit significantly improved color stability.
Regarding claim 8. HONG discloses the light emitting element according to claim 1, But HONG does not disclose explicitly wherein the second region comprises the first organic material, and a concentration of the first organic material in the second region is smaller than a concentration of the first organic material in the first region.
In a similar field of endeavor, Adamovich discloses wherein the second region comprises the first organic material, and a concentration of the first organic material in the second region is smaller than a concentration of the first organic material in the first region (Para [ 0016]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine HONG in light of Adamovich teaching “wherein the second region comprises the first organic material, and a concentration of the first organic material in the second region is smaller than a concentration of the first organic material in the first region (Para [ 0016])” for further advantage such as to provide emissive stacks exhibit significantly improved color stability.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HONG et al (US 2021/0119141 A1; hereafter HONG) as applied claims above and further in view of Yokoyama et al (US 2012/0012831 A1; hereafter Yokoyama) and LI et al (US 2020/0266375 A1; hereafter LI).
Regarding claim 10. HONG discloses the light emitting element according to claim 1, HONG further discloses further comprising a third organic layer (hole blocking layer HBL 375, Para [0064, 0114, 0121]) adjacent to the second organic layer (Fig. [6], EML 340, Para [0105, 0114-0122]) between the pair of electrodes (Fig. [6], first and second electrodes 310 and 330, Para [ 0108]).
But HONG does not disclose explicitly wherein the third organic layer comprises a third organic material having a higher electron mobility than a hole mobility, and an absolute value of a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) level of the third organic layer is larger than an absolute value of a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) level of the second organic layer.
In a similar field of endeavor, Yokoyama discloses wherein the third organic layer comprises a third organic material having a higher electron mobility than a hole mobility (Para [0011]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine HONG in light of Yokoyama teaching “wherein the third organic layer comprises a third organic material having a higher electron mobility than a hole mobility (Para [0011])” for further advantage such as contributes to increase the efficiency of organic electroluminescence devices.
But HONG and Yokoyama do not disclose explicitly an absolute value of a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) level of the third organic layer is larger than an absolute value of a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) level of the second organic layer.
In a similar field of endeavor, LI discloses an absolute value of a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) level of the third organic layer is larger than an absolute value of a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) level of the second organic layer (Para [0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine HONG and Yokoyama in light of LI teaching “an absolute value of a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) level of the third organic layer is larger than an absolute value of a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) level of the second organic layer (Para [0074])” for further advantage such as excellent long-term reliability is obtained since it is easy to control electrical characteristics.
Regarding claim 11. HONG and Yokoyama in light of LI discloses the light emitting element according to claim 10, LI further discloses wherein an absolute value of a difference between the highest occupied molecular orbital (LUMO) level of the third organic layer and the highest occupied molecular orbital (LUMO) level of the second organic layer is greater than or equal to 0.2 eV (Para [0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine HONG and Yokoyama in light of LI teaching “wherein an absolute value of a difference between the highest occupied molecular orbital (LUMO) level of the third organic layer and the highest occupied molecular orbital (LUMO) level of the second organic layer is greater than or equal to 0.2 eV (Para [0074])” for further advantage such as excellent long-term reliability is obtained since it is easy to control electrical characteristics.
Regarding claim 12. HONG and Yokoyama in light of LI discloses the light emitting element according to claim 10, HONG further discloses wherein the third organic layer (hole blocking layer HBL 375, Para [0064, 0114, 0121]) is in contact with the second region (Fig. [6], EML 340, Para [0105, 0114-0122]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOIN M RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5002. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00pm.
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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at 571-272-1864. 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.
/MOIN M RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898