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 Amendments
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed 06/24/2026 (A...), in which: claims 1, 9, 18, and 20 are amended; claims 7 are cancelled; no new claims are added; and the rejection of the claims are traversed. Claims 1 – 6 and 8 – 20 are currently pending an Office action on the merits as follows.
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed 06/24/2026 (A...), in which: claims 1, 18, and 20 are amended, rendering the rejection of claims 1 – 6 and 8 – 20, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention as moot. Examiner withdraws the rejection of claims 1 – 6 and 8 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 6 and 8 – 20 have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive. Examiner agrees with the applicant’s arguments regarding the modification of Lee et al. (US 20180158884 A1) on pages 11 – 16 of the instant Remarks. Examiner thanks applicant for their detailed arguments that clearly explained their position; and a Second Non-Final Rejection is provided herein to address applicant’s arguments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Kum et al. (US 20150372250 A1) have been fully considered but are not found to be persuasive. Particularly, regarding applicant’s argument on page 16 regarding a difference in metal content. Examiner’s understanding of Kum teaching distinct metals is still understood to include distinct “identity”.
Rejections
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 18 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 20170352707 A1).
Regarding independent Claim 18, Kim teaches a display device comprising:
a base layer (Figs. 3 and 6 – 7; base substrate BS) comprising a first pixel area (Fig. 6; examiner is considering area of second charge generation layer 400 over sub pixels SPX2 – SPX3 to be a first pixel area) configured to emit a first light (Fig. 7; see color filters CF3 ([0131]) and CF2 ([0116])) and a second pixel area (Fig. 6; examiner is considering area of first charge generation layer 300 over sub pixels SPX1 to be a second pixel area) configured to emit a second light different from the first light (Fig. 3; see color filter CF1);
a first electrode (Figs. 3 and 7; electrode layer including bottom sub pixel electrodes 110 – 130 is being considered as a first electrode. See [0094]) on the base layer (Figs. 3 and 7);
a second electrode (Figs. 3 and 7; upper electrode 600) on the first electrode (Figs. 3 and 7) and facing the first electrode (Figs. 3 and 7);
a plurality of first light emitting stacks (Fig. 7; first and second light emitting units 200 and 500 in the first pixel area) between the first electrode and the second electrode and in the first pixel area (Fig. 7);
a first charge generation layer (Figs. 7; second charge generation layer 400) between the first light emitting stacks (Fig. 7);
a plurality of second light emitting stacks (Fig. 3; first and second light emitting units 200 and 500 in the second pixel area) between the first electrode and the second electrode and in the second pixel area (Fig. 3); and
a second charge generation layer (Figs. 3; first charge generation layer 300) between the second light emitting stacks (Figs. 3; first charge generation layer 300 between the light emitting units), wherein the first charge generation layer comprises ytterbium (Yb) ([0023]), and the second charge generation layer comprises at least one of lithium (Li), potassium (K), rubidium (Rb), cesium (Cs), barium (Ba), europium (Eu), sodium (Na), strontium (Sr), samarium (Sm), calcium (Ca), terbium (Tb), or cerium (Ce), ([0023]) and
wherein the first charge generation layer is directly below an uppermost of the first light emitting stacks (Figs. 7) and the second charge generation layer is directly below an uppermost of the second light emitting stacks (Figs. 3).
Regarding dependent Claim 19, Kim teaches the display device of claim 18, wherein
the first charge generation layer does not overlap the second pixel area (Kim: Figs. 3 and 6 – 7), and the second charge generation layer does not overlap the first pixel area (Kim: Figs. 3 and 6 – 7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1 – 4, 6, 8,10 – 11, 14 – 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20170352707 A1), and further in view of Kum et al. (US 20150372250 A1).
Regarding independent Claim 1, teaches a display device comprising:
a base layer (Figs. 3 and 6 – 7; base substrate BS) comprising a first pixel area (Fig. 6; examiner is considering area of second charge generation layer 400 over sub pixels SPX2 – SPX3 to be a first pixel area) configured to emit a first light (Fig. 7; see color filters CF3 ([0131]) and CF2 ([0116])) and a second pixel area (Fig. 6; examiner is considering area of first charge generation layer 300 over sub pixels SPX1 to be a second pixel area) configured to emit a second light different from the first light (Fig. 3; see color filter CF1);
a first electrode (Figs. 3 and 7; electrode layer including bottom sub pixel electrodes 110 – 130 is being considered as a first electrode. See [0094]) on the base layer (Figs. 3 and 7);
a second electrode (Figs. 3 and 7; upper electrode 600) on the first electrode (Figs. 3 and 7) and facing the first electrode (Figs. 3 and 7);
a plurality of first light emitting stacks (Fig. 7; first and second light emitting units 200 and 500 in the first pixel area) between the first electrode and the second electrode and in the first pixel area (Fig. 7);
a first charge generation layer (Figs. 7; second charge generation layer 400) between the first light emitting stacks (Fig. 7);
a plurality of second light emitting stacks (Fig. 3; first and second light emitting units 200 and 500 in the second pixel area) between the first electrode and the second electrode and in the second pixel area (Fig. 3); and
a second charge generation layer (Figs. 3; first charge generation layer 300) between the second light emitting stacks (Figs. 3; first charge generation layer 300),
wherein the first charge generation layer comprises a first metal (one of the metals listed in [0023]), the second charge generation layer comprises a second metal (one of the metals listed in [0023]) ... and
wherein the first charge generation layer is directly below an uppermost of the first light emitting stacks (Figs. 7) and the second charge generation layer is directly below an uppermost of the second light emitting stacks (Figs. 3).
Although, Kim (US 20170352707 A1) remains silent regarding:
the second metal being ... different from the first metal, and the second metal has a work function equal to or greater than about 1.7eV and equal to or smaller than about 3.2eV,
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kum teaches a light emitting device including a first charge generation layer (CGL) 140 formed between light emitting units ([0094]); a second CGL 150 formed between light emitting units ([0139]); and wherein the first and second CGL’s 140 and 150, respectively, are taught to have different metal contents (at least [0161]). Kum states in [0161] that,
“a content of an alkali metal or alkali earth metal in the N-CGL of the first CGL 140 is referred to as “metal content 1”. Further, a content of an alkali metal or alkali earth metal in the N-CGL of the second CGL 150 is referred to as “metal content 2”.”
Examiner understands the above from Kum’s disclosure to teach that the metal content between the charge generation layers are distinct, i.e., metal content 1 and metal content 2. Thus, a display device wherein the second charge generation layer comprises a second metal different from the first metal would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention from at least the disclosure of Kum. Examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to modify the display device of Kim, in view of Kum’s distinct metal contents, to choose distinct metal contents at least from the list of metal identities found in [0023] of Kim; yielding the display device wherein the first charge generation layer comprises a first metal the second charge generation layer comprises a second metal different from the first metal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the charge generation layers of Kim to include Kum’s teaching of different metal contents between charge generation layers because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Kum’s charge generation layers are comparable to the charge generation layers of Kim because they are both formed for OLED pixels. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the charge generation layers of Kim to include Kum’s teaching of different metal contents between charge generation layers with the predictable result of meeting the distinct electrical needs of the different pixel areas, i.e., the first and second pixel areas.
Further, Kum teaches in [0143] that the metal doping in the second CGL 150 may be at least one of alkali metals or alkali earth metals having a work function in the range of 2.2 to 4.1 eV. Examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention from at least the disclosure of Kum to include a metal in a charge generation layer wherein the metal has a work function equal to or greater than about 1.7eV and equal to or smaller than about 3.2eV.
Therefore, a second charge generation layer including a second metal wherein the second metal has a work function equal to or greater than about 1.7eV and equal to or smaller than about 3.2eV would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention, from at least [0143] of Kum, because absent evidence or disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d454, 105 USQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995).
Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the dimensions claimed or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the claimed dimensions or variable are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding dependent Claim 2, Kim, further in view of Kum, teach the display device of claim 1, wherein
the first metal comprises ytterbium (Yb) (Kim: [0023]).
Regarding dependent Claim 3, Kim, further in view of Kum, teach the display device of claim 1, wherein
the second metal comprises at least one of lithium (Li), potassium (K), rubidium (Rb), cesium (Cs), barium (Ba), europium (Eu), sodium (Na), strontium (Sr), samarium (Sm), calcium (Ca), terbium (Tb), or cerium (Ce) (Kim: [0023] and Kum: [0143]).
Regarding dependent Claim 4, Kim, further in view of Kum, teach the display device of claim 1, further comprising:
an electron injection doping layer on the first electrode and under the first light emitting stacks and the second light emitting stacks; and
a hole injection doping layer on the first light emitting stacks and the second light emitting stacks and under the second electrode.
See Fig. 16 of Kim.
Further, Kum teaches a white organic light emitting device 200, wherein a first and second light emitting stack, e.g., second light emitting unit 120 and third light emitting unit 130, respectively, are included in the white organic light emitting device 200. Further, Kum teaches in [0140] that the N-CGL is configured to inject electrons to the second light emitting unit 120, and the P-CGL is configured to inject holes into the third light emitting unit 130; such that the examiner is interpreting N-CGL ([0141]), to be an electron injection doping layer on the first electrode (Fig. 3; first electrode 102). Similarly, Kum teaches in [0140] that the P-CGL is configured to inject holes into the third light emitting unit 130; such that the examiner is interpreting a P-CGL under the third light emitting unit 130, to be a hole injection doping layer on the first light emitting stacks and the second light emitting stacks and under the second electrode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Kim’s tandem OLED structure to include Kum’s ordering of layers in their tandem OLED, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Kum’s tandem OLED structure is comparable to Kim’s tandem OLED structure because they are both viable constructions for a tandem OLED, i.e., they function to emit light. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kim’s tandem OLED structure to include Kum’s ordering of layers in their tandem OLED with the predictable result of forming a functioning display device.
Regarding dependent Claim 6, Kim, further in view of Kum, teach the display device of claim 4, wherein
each of the electron injection doping layer and the hole injection doping layer entirely overlaps the first pixel area and the second pixel area (Kim: Figs. 3 and 6 – 7).
Regarding dependent Claim 8, Kim, further in view of Kum, teach the display device of claim 1, wherein
the second charge generation layer does not overlap the first pixel area (Kim: Figs. 3 and 6 – 7).
Regarding dependent Claim 10, Kim, further in view of Kum, teach the display device of claim 1, wherein
the first electrode is a reflective electrode (Kim: [0094]), the second electrode is a transflective electrode (Kim: [0094]) or a transmissive electrode (Kim: [0094]), and the first and second lights are configured to be emitted in a direction from the first electrode to the second electrode (Kim: Figs. 3 and 7).
Regarding dependent Claim 11, Kim, further in view of Kum, teach the display device of claim 1, further comprising
a circuit layer (Fig. 3; pixel circuit layer PC) on the base layer and comprising a transistor electrically connected to the first electrode ([0079]).
Regarding dependent Claim 14, Kim, further in view of Kum, teach the display device of claim 1, wherein
the base layer comprises a third pixel area adjacent to the first pixel area and the second pixel area, and the first light emitting stacks overlap the third pixel area.
Kim teaches an embodiment (Fig. 12), wherein there is an additional pixel area, i.e., a third pixel area adjacent to the first pixel area and the second pixel area, and the first light emitting stacks overlap the third pixel area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the display device of Kim and Kum to include Kim’s additional third pixel area, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Kim’s additional third pixel area is comparable to the display device shown in Figs. 3 and 6 of Kim because Kim’s additional third pixel area is presented in another embodiment (Fig. 12). Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify [the display device of Kim and Kum to include Kim’s additional third pixel area with the predictable result of controlling the luminesces of the display device.
Regarding dependent Claim 15, Kim, further in view of Kum, teach the display device of claim 14, wherein
the base layer comprises a non- pixel area (Fig. 1; area between the sub pixels SPX) defined therein to be around each of the first pixel area (Figs. 1 and 6), the second pixel area (Figs. 1 and 6), and the third pixel area (Figs. 1 and 6), and one or more of the first light emitting stacks overlap the non-pixel area (Figs. 3 and 7).
Regarding dependent Claim 16, Kim, further in view of Kum, teach the display device of claim 1, wherein
the second metal has an electrical conductivity higher than an electrical conductivity of the first metal.
From the disclosure of Kum, the metals included in the first and second charge generation layers, i.e., the first and second metals, respectively, may be different metals selected from alkali metal such as lithium (Li), sodium (Na), potassium (K), or cesium (Cs), or an alkali earth metal such as magnesium (Mg), strontium (Sr), barium (Ba), or radium (Ra), or a combination thereof (Kum: [0143]). Thus, a combination implied to be viable by Kum’s disclosure may be, as an example, potassium for the first metal and cesium for the second metal. Examiner asserts by use of Official Notice that the conductivity for metals on the periodic table increases going from the right to the left and from the top to the bottom. As cesium is closer to the bottom of the periodic table than potassium, cesium is more conductive. Therefore, Kum implies that the second metal has an electrical conductivity higher than an electrical conductivity of the first metal through their disclosure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the display device of Kim and Kum to include a relationship between the charge generations layers wherein the second metal has an electrical conductivity higher than an electrical conductivity of the first metal, as provided by Kum, because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify the display device of Kim and Kum to include a relationship between the charge generations layers wherein the second metal has an electrical conductivity higher than an electrical conductivity of the first metal is expressly provided by Official Notice, because as established in rejection claim 1, Kum teaches that different doping metals may be used in the distinct charge generations layers, wherein Official Notice is taken from the periodic table and the known trends associated with the organization of the periodic table, specifically regarding the trend related to conductivity of metals. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the display device of Kim and Kum to include a relationship between the charge generations layers wherein the second metal has an electrical conductivity higher than an electrical conductivity of the first metal with the motivation of meeting the distinct electrical needs of the different pixel areas, i.e., the first and second pixel areas.
Regarding dependent Claim 17, Kim, further in view of Kum, teach the display device of claim 1, wherein
... the second charge generation layer comprises an n-type second charge generation layer ([0178]), ... and then-type second charge generation layer comprises the second metal (Yielded from Kim, further in view of Kum’s teaching metals).
Although, Kim remains silent regarding:
the first charge generation layer comprises an n-type first charge generation layer, ...
and the n-type first charge generation layer comprises the first metal, ...
However, further in view of Kum’s teaching in at least [0014], it is understood that Kim’s first charge generation layer (i.e., second charge generation layer 400) may be an n-type charge generation layer. This is further supported by the overlap of materials between the disclosures of Kim and Kum. Therefore, Kim’s second charge generation layer 400, further in view of Kum, is being considered to teach the first charge generation layer comprises an n-type first charge generation layer, and the n-type first charge generation layer comprises the first metal (Yielded from Kim, further in view of Kum’s teaching metals).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the display device of Kim and Kum to include Kum’s teaching of charge generation layers in [0014] in view of Kim’s teaching of the same materials for charge generation layers 300 and 400, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Kum teaching of charge generation layers is comparable to that of Kim because both disclosure teach different embodiments of charge generation layers. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Kim and Kum to include Kum’s teaching of charge generation layers in [0014] in view of Kim’s teaching of the same materials for charge generation layers 300 and 400 with the predictable result of having a charge generation layer that include an n-type layer.
Regarding independent Claim 20, Kim teaches a display device comprising:
a base layer (Figs. 3 and 6 – 7; base substrate BS) comprising a first pixel area (Fig. 6; examiner is considering area of second charge generation layer 400 over sub pixels SPX2 – SPX3 to be a first pixel area) configured to emit a first light (Fig. 7; see color filters CF3 ([0131]) and CF2 ([0116])) and a second pixel area (Fig. 6; examiner is considering area of first charge generation layer 300 over sub pixels SPX1 to be a second pixel area) configured to emit a second light different from the first light (Fig. 3; see color filter CF1);
a first electrode (Figs. 3 and 7; electrode layer including bottom sub pixel electrodes 110 – 130 is being considered as a first electrode. See [0094]) on the base layer (Figs. 3 and 7);
a second electrode (Figs. 3 and 7; upper electrode 600) on the first electrode (Figs. 3 and 7) and facing the first electrode (Figs. 3 and 7);
...
a plurality of first light emitting stacks (Fig. 7; first and second light emitting units 200 and 500 in the first pixel area) ... in the first pixel area (Fig. 7);
a first charge generation layer (Figs. 7; second charge generation layer 400) between the first light emitting stacks (Fig. 7);
a plurality of second light emitting stacks (Fig. 3; first and second light emitting units 200 and 500 in the second pixel area) ... in the second pixel area (Fig. 3);
a second charge generation layer (Figs. 3; first charge generation layer 300) between the second light emitting stacks (Figs. 3; first charge generation layer 300); and ...
wherein the first charge generation layer comprises a first metal (one of the metals listed in [0023]), and the second charge generation layer comprises a second metal (one of the metals listed in [0023]) ... and
wherein the first charge generation layer is directly below an uppermost of the first light emitting stacks (Figs. 7) and the second charge generation layer is directly below an uppermost of the second light emitting stacks (Figs. 3),
wherein each of the first light emitting stacks comprises a first light emitting layer (Light emitting layer of the first light emitting unit 200 in the first pixel area) configured to emit the first light ([0083]) and
wherein each of the second light emitting stacks comprises a second light emitting layer (Light emitting layer of the second light emitting unit 500 in the first pixel area) configured to emit the second light ([0088]).
Although, Kim remains silent regarding:
... an electron injection doping layer on the first electrode; ...
a plurality of first light emitting stacks on the electron injection doping layer and ...
a plurality of second light emitting stacks on the electron injection doping layer and ...
a hole injection doping layer on the plurality of first light emitting stacks and the plurality of second light emitting stacks and under the second electrode,
the second metal being different from the first metal, and ...
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kum teaches in [0140] that the N-CGL is configured to inject electrons to the second light emitting unit 120, and the P-CGL is configured to inject holes into the third light emitting unit 130; such that the examiner is interpreting first charge generation layer (CGL) 140, which includes N-CGL ([0141]), to be an electron injection doping layer on the first electrode (Fig. 3; first electrode 102). As shown in Fig. 3, there are two distinct light emitting units, i.e., second light emitting unit 120 and third light emitting unit 130, either of which may be a first or second light emitting stack. For example, second light emitting unit 120 may be used as a first or second light emitting stack, in view of Kim. With this understanding, Kum further teaches a plurality of first light emitting stacks on the electron injection doping layer and a plurality of second light emitting stacks on the electron injection doping layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Kim’s OLED structure to include Kum’s ordering of layers in their tandem OLED, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Kum’s tandem OLED structure is comparable to Kim’s tandem OLED structure because they are both viable constructions for a tandem OLED, i.e., they function to emit light. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kim’s tandem OLED structure to include Kum’s ordering of layers in their tandem OLED with the predictable result of forming a functioning display device with a plurality of first light emitting stacks on the electron injection doping layer and a plurality of second light emitting stacks on the electron injection doping layer.
Similarly, Kum teaches in [0140] that the P-CGL is configured to inject holes into the third light emitting unit 130; such that the examiner is interpreting a P-CGL under the third light emitting unit 130, to be a hole injection doping layer on the plurality of first light emitting stacks and the plurality of second light emitting stacks and under the second electrode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Kim’s tandem OLED structure to include Kum’s ordering of layers in their tandem OLED, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Kum’s tandem OLED structure is comparable to Kim’s tandem OLED structure because they are both viable constructions for a tandem OLED, i.e., they function to emit light. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kim’s tandem OLED structure to include Kum’s ordering of layers in their tandem OLED with the predictable result of forming a functioning display device with a hole injection doping layer on the plurality of first light emitting stacks and the plurality of second light emitting stacks and under the second electrode.
Further, Kum teaches a light emitting device including a first charge generation layer (CGL) 140 formed between light emitting units ([0094]); a second CGL 150 formed between light emitting units ([0139]); and wherein the first and second CGL’s 140 and 150, respectively, are taught to have different metal contents (at least [0161]). Kum states in [0161] that,
“a content of an alkali metal or alkali earth metal in the N-CGL of the first CGL 140 is referred to as “metal content 1”. Further, a content of an alkali metal or alkali earth metal in the N-CGL of the second CGL 150 is referred to as “metal content 2”.”
Examiner understands the above from Kum’s disclosure to teach that the metal content between the charge generation layers are distinct, i.e., metal content 1 and metal content 2. Thus, a display device wherein the second charge generation layer comprises a second metal different from the first metal would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention from at least the disclosure of Kum. Examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to modify the display device of Kim, in view of Kum’s distinct metal contents, to choose distinct metal contents at least from the list of metal identities found in [0023] of Kim; yielding the display device wherein the first charge generation layer comprises a first metal the second charge generation layer comprises a second metal different from the first metal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the charge generation layers of Kim to include Kum’s teaching of different metal contents between charge generation layers because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Kum’s charge generation layers are comparable to the charge generation layers of Kim because they are both formed for OLED pixels. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the charge generation layers of Kim to include Kum’s teaching of different metal contents between charge generation layers with the predictable result of meeting the distinct electrical needs of the different pixel areas, i.e., the first and second pixel areas.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20170352707 A1), and further in view of Kum et al. (US 20150372250 A1) and Fadhel et al. (US 20160322568 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 5, Kim, further in view of Kum, teach the display device of claim 4, wherein
the electron injection doping layer comprises a third metal having (Kum: [0155]) a work function equal to or greater than about 1.7eV and equal to or smaller than about 3.2eV (Kum: [0143]), and the hole injection doping layer comprises an organic material (Kum: [0145]) …
However, Kum, remains silent regarding the hole injection doping layer
… with a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) level equal to or greater than about -6.0eV and equal to or smaller than about -4.0eV.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fadhel teaches that their hole transport layer HTL also functions as a hole injection layer HIL. Further, Fadhel teaches in [0088] that their hole transport may include an organic material, e.g., copper phthalocyanine (CuPc), which HOMO level is approximately −5.2 eV.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Kum’s organic material for the hole injection doping layer to include the materials disclosed by Fadhel’s hole injection layer because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, Kum’s organic material for the hole injection doping layer and the materials disclosed by Fadhel’s hole injection layer perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being host material for a hole injection layer. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of Kum’s organic material for the hole injection doping layer by replacing it with the materials disclosed by Fadhel’s hole injection layer. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Further, a hole injection doping layer comprising an organic material with a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) level equal to or greater than about -6.0eV and equal to or smaller than about -4.0eV would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention, from at least [0088] of Fadhel, because absent evidence or disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d454, 105 USQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995).
Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the dimensions claimed or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the claimed dimensions or variable are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20170352707 A1), and further in view of Kum et al. (US 20150372250 A1) and Lim et al. (US 20200044178 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 9, Kim, further in view of Kum, teach the display device of claim 1, further comprising:
a pixel definition layer (Fig. 3; a pixel defining layer PDL) on the base layer and defining a plurality of openings a plurality of openings therethrough to respectively correspond to the first pixel area and the second pixel area (Figs. 3 and 7); and
a bank on the pixel definition layer and between at least a portion of the first light emitting stacks and at least a portion of the second light emitting stacks.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lim teaches a display device including:
a pixel definition layer (Fig. 2; insulating layer 300) on the base layer (Fig. 2; substrate 100) and defining a plurality of openings (Fig. 2; trench T) therethrough to respectively correspond to the first pixel area and the second pixel area (Fig. 2); and
a bank (Fig. 2; fence structure 500) on the pixel definition layer (Fig. 2) and between at least a portion of the first light emitting stacks (Fig. 2) and at least a portion of the second light emitting stacks (Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Kim’s display device structure to include Lim’s pixel definition layer and bank, because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, the display device of Kim and Kum as modified by Lim’s pixel definition layer and bank can yield a predictable result of helping improve the light emission efficiency of the device since pixel definition layers and banks can help reflect light emitted from the diode structure. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20170352707 A1), and further in view of Kum et al. (US 20150372250 A1) and Seo et al. (US 20130240851 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 12, Kim, further in view of Kum, teach the display device of claim 11; however, Kim remains silent wherein
the transistor is an NMOS transistor.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Seo teaches that display device circuitry may include an NMOS circuit ([0205]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the display device of Kim and Kim to include Seo’s NMOS transistor, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Seo’s NMOS transistor is comparable to Kim’s transistor structure because they are both transistors for driving pixels. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kim’s circuit layer to include Seo’s NMOS transistor with the predictable result of forming a circuit layer for a display device.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20170352707 A1), and further in view of Kum et al. (US 20150372250 A1) and Sun et al. (US 20160141542 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 13, Kim, further in view of Kum, teach the display device of claim 1, wherein each of the first light emitting stacks comprises:
a first electron transport layer (Fig. 16; a first electron control layer ECL1 in view of first light emitting unit 200 in the first pixel area) ...
the first light emitting layer (Fig. 16; a first light emitting layer EML1 in view of first light emitting unit 200 in the first pixel area) ... and
a first hole transport layer (Fig. 16; first hole control layer HCL1 in view of first light emitting unit 200 in the first pixel area) spaced apart from the first electron transport layer with the first light emitting layer interposed therebetween (Fig. 16) ... and
wherein each of the second light emitting stacks comprises:
a second electron transport layer (Fig. 16; a first electron control layer ECL1) ...
the second light emitting layer (Fig. 16; a first light emitting layer EML1) ...
a second hole transport layer (Fig. 16; first hole control layer HCL1) spaced apart from the second electron transport layer with the second light emitting layer interposed therebetween (Fig. 16) ...
Although, Kim remains silent regarding the structure of inverting their stack order to yield the structure wherein (bold and underline for emphasis):
a first electron transport layer adjacent to the first electrode;
the first light emitting layer on the first electron transport layer; and
a first hole transport layer spaced apart from the first electron transport layer with the first light emitting layer interposed therebetween and adjacent to the second electrode, and
wherein each of the second light emitting stacks comprises:
a second electron transport layer adjacent to the first electrode;
the second light emitting layer on the second electron transport layer; and
a second hole transport layer spaced apart from the second electron transport layer with the second light emitting layer interposed therebetween and adjacent to the second electrode.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sun teaches that for a given OLED structure, the layers of the light emitting units may be inverted/reversed and result in normal function of the device (See Figs. 4 and 10, and [0081]). The application of Sun’s teaching for inversion may be used to modify the display device of Kim, further in view of Kum, to result in the display device wherein:
each of the first light emitting stacks comprises:
a first electron transport layer adjacent to the first electrode;
a first light emitting layer on the first electron transport layer; and
a first hole transport layer spaced apart from the first electron transport layer with the first light emitting layer interposed therebetween and adjacent to the second electrode, and
wherein each of the second light emitting stacks comprises:
a second electron transport layer adjacent to the first electrode;
a second light emitting layer on the second electron transport layer;
a second hole transport layer spaced apart from the second electron transport layer with the second light emitting layer interposed therebetween and adjacent to the second electrode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Kim’s tandem OLED structure to have an inverted structure, as disclosed to be viable by Sun, who discloses that the stack order in an OLED may be inverted, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, the tandem OLED structures disclosed by Kim are comparable to Sun’s tandem OLED structure because they are both viable constructions for a tandem OLED, i.e., they function to emit light. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the tandem OLED structures disclosed by Kim to include an inverted form in their tandem OLED, as disclosed to be viable by Sun, with the predictable result of forming a functioning display device.
Conclusion
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure:
US 20200043987 A1 – considered for LED stack structure (Fig. 18)
US 20180158884 A1 - previously relied upon.
US 20210175296 A1 -– previously relied upon.
US 20220149312 A1 – teachings in Figs. 7 and 8, [0077], and [0127] – [0128] imply that the charge generation layers CGL1-3 are different from each other because charge generation layers CGL1-3 must function to appropriately balance the charge between emission stacks ([0077]).
US 20100301317 A1 – considered for their multiple charge generation layers.
US 20200227687 A1 – considered for their OLED structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIO A AUTORE whose telephone number is (571)270-0059. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chad Dicke can be reached on (571) 270-7996. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
MARIO A. AUTORE JR.
Examiner
Art Unit 2897
/MARIO ANDRES AUTORE JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2897 /CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights