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 02/27/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending for this examination.
Oath/Declaration
The oath or declaration filed on 02/29/2023 is acceptable.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of species I (Fig. [3]): claims 1, 7-13 and 16-20 in the reply filed on 02/27/2026 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This office action considers claims 1-20 pending for prosecution, wherein claims 2-6 and 14-15 are withdrawn from further consideration, and 1, 7-13 and 16-20 are presented for examination.
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 1 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishisone et al (US 2016/0343968 A1; hereafter Ishisone) in view of Tang et al (US 2019/0109295 A1; hereafter Tang) and further in view of Takaya et al (US 2023/0006167 A1; hereafter Takaya).
PNG
media_image1.png
308
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1. Ishisone discloses a light-emitting device, comprising:
a luminescent layer (Fig [1-3], EL layer 303, Para [ 0057-0060]) comprising a first sublayer (Fig [1-3], 311B, blue light emitting layer, construed as first sublayer, Para [ 0057-0060]), a second sublayer (Fig [1-3], 311G, green light emitting layer, construed as second sublayer, Para [ 0057-0060]) and a third sublayer (Fig [1-3], 311R, red light emitting layer, construed as third sublayer, Para [ 0057-0060]), wherein the second sublayer (Fig [1-3], 311G, construed as second sublayer, Para [ 0057-0060]) is disposed between the first sublayer (Fig [1-3], 311B, construed as first sublayer, Para [ 0057-0060]) and the third sublayer (311R, construed as third sublayer, Para [ 0057-0060]);
the second sublayer (Fig [1-3], 311G, construed as second sublayer, Para [ 0057-0060]) comprises host materials and guest materials (Fig [1-3], Para [ 0059] discloses “a green light-emitting layer 311G containing a phosphorescent compound 311Gd emitting green light and a host material 311Gh”); under the action of external energy, excitons are compounded in the second sublayer (Fig 3A/3B, Para [ 0063-0067]).
But Ishisone does not disclose explicitly wherein the first sublayer and the third sublayer both comprise the host materials; a concentration of the excitons in the second sublayer is greater than a concentration of the excitons in the first sublayer, and the concentration of the excitons in the second sublayer is greater than a concentration of the excitons in the third sublayer.
In a similar field of endeavor, Tang discloses wherein the first sublayer and the third sublayer both comprise the host materials (CBP materials Red/ green/blue, same host materials, Para [ 0173-0175]).
Since Ishisone and TANG are both from the similar field of endeavor, and TANG discloses OLED display device red, green and blue emitting layers includes same host materials. Therefore, the purpose disclosed by Ishisone would have been recognized in the pertinent art of TANG. 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 Ishisone in light of TANG teaching “wherein the first sublayer and the third sublayer both comprise the host materials (CBP materials Red/ green/blue, same host materials, Para [ 0173-0175])” for further advantage such as higher emission efficiency can be obtained.
But Ishisone and TANG do not disclose explicitly a concentration of the excitons in the second sublayer is greater than a concentration of the excitons in the first sublayer, and the concentration of the excitons in the second sublayer is greater than a concentration of the excitons in the third sublayer.
In a similar field of endeavor, Takaya discloses a concentration of the excitons in the second sublayer is greater than a concentration of the excitons in the first sublayer (Para [ 0053-0055] discloses the dope concentration of the green light emitting dopant material is preferably 0.1% by mass or more and less than 10% by mass and The dope concentration of the red light emitting dopant material is preferably 0.1% by mass or more and less than 5% by mass), and the concentration of the excitons in the second sublayer is greater than a concentration of the excitons in the third sublayer (Para [ 0053-0055] discloses the dope concentration of the green light emitting dopant material is preferably 0.1% by mass or more and less than 10% by mass and the dope concentration of the blue light emitting dopant material is preferably 0.1% by mass or more and less than 5% by mass).
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 Ishisone and TANG in light of Takaya teaching “a concentration of the excitons in the second sublayer is greater than a concentration of the excitons in the first sublayer (Para [ 0053-0055] discloses the dope concentration of the green light emitting dopant material is preferably 0.1% by mass or more and less than 10% by mass and The dope concentration of the red light emitting dopant material is preferably 0.1% by mass or more and less than 5% by mass), and the concentration of the excitons in the second sublayer is greater than a concentration of the excitons in the third sublayer (Para [ 0053-0055] discloses the dope concentration of the green light emitting dopant material is preferably 0.1% by mass or more and less than 10% by mass and the dope concentration of the blue light emitting dopant material is preferably 0.1% by mass or more and less than 5% by mass)” for further advantage such as to provide high contrast and better luminance performance.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 17. Ishisone, TANG and Takaya disclose display apparatus. comprising the light-emitting device according to claim1 (Ishisone, Para [ 0057-0061]).
Regarding claim 18. Ishisone, TANG and Takaya disclose the display apparatus according to claim 17. TANG discloses wherein the first sublayer and the third sublayer are single-layer structures and both comprise the host materials (Para [ 0173-0175]).
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 Ishisone and Takaya in light of TANG teaching “wherein the first sublayer and the third sublayer are single-layer structures and both comprise the host materials (Para [ 0173-0175])” for further advantage such as higher emission efficiency can be obtained.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishisone et al (US 2016/0343968 A1; hereafter Ishisone) in view of Tang et al (US 2019/0109295 A1; hereafter Tang) and in view of Takaya et al (US 2023/0006167 A1; hereafter Takaya) as applied claim above and further in view of KANG et al (US 2020/0161577 A1; hereafter KANG).
Regarding claim 19. Ishisone, TANG and Takaya disclose the display apparatus according to claim 18. Ishisone further discloses wherein the light-emitting device further comprises a hole injection layer (Fig [1], hole-injection layer 201, Para [ 0163]) disposed on a side of the first sublayer (Fig [1], 203x, construed as first sublayer, Para [ 0102]) away from the second sublayer (Fig [1-3], 203y, construed as second sublayer, Para [ 0102]).
But Ishisone, TANG and Takaya do not disclose explicitly a range of an absolute value of a difference between an energy value of a highest occupied molecular orbital HOMO of the first sublayer and an energy value of a highest occupied molecular orbital HOMO of the second sublayer comprises 0.1-0.5eV.
In a similar field of endeavor, KANG discloses a range of an absolute value of a difference between an energy value of a highest occupied molecular orbital HOMO of the first sublayer (Para [ 0127]) and an energy value of a highest occupied molecular orbital HOMO of the second sublayer comprises 0.1-0.5eV (Para [ 0127]).
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 Ishisone, TANG and Takaya in light of KANG teaching “a range of an absolute value of a difference between an energy value of a highest occupied molecular orbital HOMO of the first sublayer (Para [ 0127]) and an energy value of a highest occupied molecular orbital HOMO of the second sublayer comprises 0.1-0.5eV (Para [ 0127])” for further advantage such as driving voltage of the light emitting device is minimized and quantum efficiency is maximized.
Regarding claim 20. Ishisone, TANG and Takaya disclose the display apparatus according to claim 18. Ishisone further discloses wherein the light-emitting device further comprises an electron injection layer (electron-injection layer 205, Para [ 0102]) disposed on a side of the third sublayer (Fig [1], 203z, construed as third sublayer, Para [ 0102]) away from the second sublayer (Fig [1], 203y, construed as second sublayer, Para [ 0102]).
But Ishisone, TANG and Takaya do not disclose explicitly a range of an absolute value of a difference between an energy value of a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital LUMO of the third sublayer and an energy value of a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital LUMO of the second sublayer comprises 0.1-0.5eV.
In a similar field of endeavor, KANG discloses a range of an absolute value of a difference between an energy value of a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital LUMO of the third sublayer (Para [ 0127]) and an energy value of a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital LUMO of the second sublayer comprises 0.1-0.5eV (Para [ 0127]).
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 Ishisone, TANG and Takaya in light of KANG teaching “a range of an absolute value of a difference between an energy value of a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital LUMO of the third sublayer (Para [ 0127]) and an energy value of a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital LUMO of the second sublayer comprises 0.1-0.5eV (Para [ 0127])” for further advantage such as driving voltage of the light emitting device is minimized and quantum efficiency is maximized.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-13 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is the Examiner's Reasons for Allowance:
The prior art fails to disclose and would not have rendered obvious:
Regarding claim 7. The light-emitting device according to claim 1. wherein the first sublayer comprises a first auxiliary sublayer and a first electron barrier sublayer. the first electron barrier sublayer is disposed between the first auxiliary sublayer and the second sublayer: and the third sublayer comprises a second auxiliary sublayer and a first hole barrier sublayer, the first hole barrier sublayer is disposed between the second auxiliary sublayer and the second sublayer.
Claims 8-13 and 16 are objected based on the dependency of claim 7.
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
Prosecution Insights