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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicants argument, “The key distinction between Thompson and Song, and the reason they cannot be combined, is that Thompson is directed to a single-unit architecture, whereas Song is directed to a multi-stack tandem architecture.” The examiner’s perspective of using Thompson and Song combined is one ordinarily skilled in the art could substitute the single-unit architecture (with the 2 color emissive layers and carrier in between) for one of the light emitting regions in a muti-stack tandem to achieve the same results.
Regarding applicants argument, “Furthermore, even if one of ordinary skill were to combine Thompson with Song, the combination would not achieve the objectives of either reference.” The prior art combination does not require achieving similar objections but at least have some reasonable level of expected beneficial result (see MPEP 2144, “It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant”). Furthermore, after further search, the examiner would like to point out other references which discloses similar inventive features using a similar combination (substituting the inventive single 2-color layers and carrier within light emitting stack into a multi-stack tandem structure). See Choung et al. (US 20220199919 A1) Fig. 7 or 8 (multi-stack) in view of Jinde et al. (US 20080049413 A1) Fig. 1 (single stack) which shows a multi-stack one with 2 color emissive layers in a single region but without the carrier whereas Jinde discloses a single stack with all the relevant parts of the applicant’s inventive concept. At this time, the action is proper (per consultation with a primary examiner) and is therefore final.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 says, “toward to the reflection electrode” in line 4. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 11-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (US 20080102310 A1) and further in view of Song et al. (US 20210175456 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Thompson discloses a display panel, comprising:
an anode; ([0014], Fig. 4 and 7B)
a cathode opposed to the anode, ([0014], Fig. 4 and 7B) wherein one of the anode and the cathode is a reflection electrode (per [0005]) while the other of the anode and the cathode is a transmission electrode ([0005]); (Fig. 4 and 7B)
a first light emitter (annotated below) disposed between the anode and the cathode (Fig. 4 and 7B) wherein
the first light emitter (annotated below) comprises a first hole transport layer (HTL), a first electron transport layer (ETL) and a first light-emitting structure (emissive region), (Fig. 4 and 7B)
the first hole transport layer (HTL) is opposed to the first electron transport layer (ETL); (Fig. 4 and 7B)
the first light-emitting structure (emissive region) is disposed between the first hole transport layer (HTL) and the first electron transport layer (ETL); (Fig. 4 and 7B)
the first light-emitting structure (emissive region) comprises a red light-emitting layer (per [0019] and [0061], Fig. 4 and annotated below in Fig. 7B) and a first blue light-emitting layer (per [0019] and [0061], Fig. 4 and annotated below in Fig. 7B).
wherein the first light-emitting structure (emissive region) further comprises a carrier transport layer (spacer), the carrier transport layer is disposed on a side of the red light-emitting layer (annotated below) facing toward the first blue light-emitting layer (annotated below), the first blue light-emitting layer is disposed on a side of the carrier transport layer (spacer) away from the red light-emitting layer, and the carrier transport layer (spacer) is disposed on a side of the first blue light-emitting layer facing toward the anode; (Fig.4 and 7B)
and wherein the red light-emitting layer (annotated below) is disposed on a side of the first blue light-emitting layer facing toward to the anode, (Fig. 4 and 7B)
wherein the carrier transport layer (spacer), the red light-emitting layer (annotated below), and the first blue light-emitting layer (annotated below) are in the first light emitter (annotated below). (Fig. 4 and 7B)
PNG
media_image1.png
382
525
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
50
142
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
445
755
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thompson does not explicitly disclose:
And a hole transport rate of the carrier transport layer is greater than an electron transport rate of the carrier transport layer.
However, Thompson does disclose:
“[0066] The devices of the invention are constructed so that recombination occurs primarily in the fluorescent layer. Even more preferably, the device is constructed so that the recombination zone is at the interface of a fluorescent layer and an adjacent transport layer (HTL or ETL) or blocking layer. This may be achieved by doping a charge-transporting dopant into the layers of the emissive region. Thus, in preferred embodiments, the fluorescent layer, phosphorescent layer(s) and spacer layer are each doped with the charge transporting-dopant. “
“[0068] The charge-transporting dopant material may be selected from any material which facilitates the transport of holes or electrons across the emissive region when doped into the host material(s) or the emissive region, and which does not substantially interfere with emission from emissive layers.” Which corresponds to the applicant’s carrier transport layer because in paragraph [0057] of the instant application, it says, “For example, if the red light-emitting layer 704 is disposed on a side of the first blue light-emitting layer 706 facing toward the anode 1, a hole transport rate of the carrier transport layer 705 is greater than an electron transport rate of the carrier transport layer 705, that is, the carrier transport layer 705 mainly functions as a “hole transport layer”.” And therefore, as it is being claimed, the examiner is reading the “carrier transport layer” as a hole transport functioning layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use the teachings of Thompson for a hole transport rate of the carrier transport layer is greater than an electron transport rate of the carrier transport layer in order to “allow for optimal performance and the elimination of energy barriers to transport.” (Thompson, [0066])
Thompson does not disclose further comprising:
a first charge generation layer, disposed on a side of the first light emitter along a thickness direction of the display panel;
a second light emitter, disposed between the anode and the cathode and on a side of the first charge generation layer away from the first light emitter, wherein the second light emitter is capable of emitting green light.
a second charge generation layer, disposed on a side of the second light emitter away from the first charge generation layer; and
a third light emitter, disposed between the anode and the cathode and on a side of the second charge generation layer away from the second light emitter, wherein the third light emitter is capable of emitting blue light.
However, Song discloses:
a first charge generation layer (190), disposed on a side of the first light emitter (BS2) along a thickness direction of the display panel (OS); ([0053], Fig. 1)
a second light emitter (RGS), disposed between the anode (110) and the cathode (240) and on a side of the first charge generation layer (190) away from the first light emitter (BS2), wherein the second light emitter (RGS), is capable of emitting green light (per [0058]). (Fig. 1)
a second charge generation layer (150), disposed on a side of the second light emitter (RGS) away from the first charge generation layer (190); ([0053], Fig. 1) and
a third light emitter (BS1), disposed between the anode (110) and the cathode (240) and on a side of the second charge generation layer (150) away from the second light emitter (RGS), wherein the third light emitter (BS1) is capable of emitting blue light. ([0058], Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Song to arrive at the claimed invention in order to “express uniform color coordinates of white.” (Song, [0011])
Regarding claim 3, Thompson discloses the display panel of claim 1, wherein the carrier transport layer (spacer) has a thickness of 2 nm to 30 nm. (per [0062])
Regarding claim 5, Thompson discloses the display panel of claim 1, wherein the red light-emitting layer (per [0019] and [0061], Fig. 4 and 7B) comprises a host material and a guest material, and the guest material comprises a fluorescent material. (per [0080])
Regarding claim 6, Thompson discloses the display panel of claim 5. Thompson does not explicitly disclose wherein the guest material comprises one or more of rubrene, Nile red, ethidium bromide, Tris(2,2'-bipyridyl) ruthenium (II) chloride hexahydrate, or coumarin compound.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the guest material comprises one or more of rubrene, Nile red, ethidium bromide, Tris(2,2'-bipyridyl)ruthenium (II) chloride hexahydrate, or coumarin compound, since it has been held to be within the general skill of worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design variation and choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 7, Thompson discloses the display panel of claim 5, wherein a weight ratio of the guest material to the host material in the red light-emitting layer is 2% to 10%. ([0078])
Regarding claim 8, Thompson discloses the display panel of claim 1, wherein the red light-emitting layer (per [0019] and [0061], Fig. 4 and 7B) is disposed on a side of the first blue light-emitting layer (per [0019] and [0061], Fig. 4 and 7B) facing toward the reflection electrode (anode); (Fig. 4 and 7B)
Thompson does not explicitly disclose:
a distance between the red light-emitting layer and the reflection electrode is 190 nm to 210 nm.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use the teachings of Thompson to arrive at a distance between the red light-emitting layer and the reflection electrode is 190 nm to 210 nm through routine experimentation per MPEP 2144.05 so as “to obtain desired structural and optical properties.” (Thompson, [0036])
Regarding claim 11, Song discloses the display panel of claim 10, wherein the second light emitter (RGS) is disposed on a side of the first light emitter (BS2) facing toward the reflection electrode (110). ([0055], Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Song to arrive at the claimed invention for similar reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 12, Song discloses the display panel of claim 11, wherein the second light emitter (RGS) comprises a green light-emitting layer (175), (per [0058]).
Song does not explicitly disclose:
And a distance between the green light-emitting layer and the reflection electrode is 135 nm to 155 nm.
However, Song does disclose:
“[0090] In the white organic light emitting elements according to the second and third embodiments, the position of the light emitting layer in each light emitting stack may be set to a position where optimal resonance of the wavelength of light emitted by the light emitting layer occurs, and when the blue light emitting layers and other colored light emitting layers are located in the stacks arranged in an order different from the order shown in FIG. 1 between the first and second electrodes 110 and 240, the distances between the respective light emitting layers and the first electrode 110 may be adjusted by changing the thickness of the adjacent charge generation layer 150 or 190 or the thicknesses of the hole transport units 120 and 210.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use the teachings of Song to arrive at a distance between the green light-emitting layer and the reflection electrode is 135 nm to 155 nm through routine experimentation per MPEP 2144.05 in order to “express uniform color coordinates of white.” (Song, [0011])
Regarding claim 14, Song discloses the display panel of claim 13, wherein
the second light emitter (RGS) is disposed on a side of the first light emitter (BS2) facing toward the reflection electrode (110), (Fig. 1) and
the third light emitter (BS1) is disposed on a side of the second light emitter (RGS) facing toward to the reflection electrode (110). (Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Song to arrive at the claimed invention for similar reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 15, Song discloses the display panel of claim 14, wherein
the second light emitter (RGS) comprises a green light-emitting layer (175), (Fig. 1)
Song does not explicitly disclose:
a distance between the green light-emitting layer and the reflection electrode is 135 nm to 155 nm.
However, Song does disclose:
“[0090] In the white organic light emitting elements according to the second and third embodiments, the position of the light emitting layer in each light emitting stack may be set to a position where optimal resonance of the wavelength of light emitted by the light emitting layer occurs, and when the blue light emitting layers and other colored light emitting layers are located in the stacks arranged in an order different from the order shown in FIG. 1 between the first and second electrodes 110 and 240, the distances between the respective light emitting layers and the first electrode 110 may be adjusted by changing the thickness of the adjacent charge generation layer 150 or 190 or the thicknesses of the hole transport units 120 and 210.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use the teachings of Song to arrive at a distance between the green light-emitting layer and the reflection electrode is 135 nm to 155 nm through routine experimentation per MPEP 2144.05 in order to “express uniform color coordinates of white.” (Song, [0011])
Regarding claim 16, Thompson discloses a display apparatus, comprising the display panel, comprising:
an anode; ([0014], Fig. 4 and 7B)
a cathode opposed to the anode, ([0014], Fig. 4 and 7B) wherein one of the anode and the cathode is a reflection electrode (per [0005]) while the other of the anode and the cathode is a transmission electrode ([0005]); (Fig. 4 and 7B)
a first light emitter (annotated below) disposed between the anode and the cathode (Fig. 4 and 7B) wherein
the first light emitter (annotated below) comprises a first hole transport layer (HTL), a first electron transport layer (ETL) and a first light-emitting structure (emissive region), (Fig. 4 and 7B)
the first hole transport layer (HTL) is opposed to the first electron transport layer (ETL); (Fig. 4 and 7B)
the first light-emitting structure (emissive region) is disposed between the first hole transport layer (HTL) and the first electron transport layer (ETL); (Fig. 4 and 7B)
the first light-emitting structure (emissive region) comprises a red light-emitting layer (per [0019] and [0061], Fig. 4 and annotated below in Fig. 7B) and a first blue light-emitting layer (per [0019] and [0061], Fig. 4 and annotated below in Fig. 7B).
wherein the first light-emitting structure (emissive region) further comprises a carrier transport layer (spacer), the carrier transport layer is disposed on a side of the red light-emitting layer (annotated below) facing toward the first blue light-emitting layer (annotated below), the first blue light-emitting layer is disposed on a side of the carrier transport layer (spacer) away from the red light-emitting layer, and the carrier transport layer (spacer) is disposed on a side of the first blue light-emitting layer facing toward the anode; (Fig. 4 and 7B)
and wherein the red light-emitting layer (annotated below) is disposed on a side of the first blue light-emitting layer facing toward to the anode, (Fig. 4 and 7B)
wherein the carrier transport layer (spacer), the red light-emitting layer (annotated below), and the first blue light-emitting layer (annotated below) are in the first light emitter (annotated below). (Fig. 4 and 7B)
PNG
media_image1.png
382
525
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
50
142
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
445
755
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thompson does not explicitly disclose:
And a hole transport rate of the carrier transport layer is greater than an electron transport rate of the carrier transport layer.
However, Thompson does disclose:
“[0066] The devices of the invention are constructed so that recombination occurs primarily in the fluorescent layer. Even more preferably, the device is constructed so that the recombination zone is at the interface of a fluorescent layer and an adjacent transport layer (HTL or ETL) or blocking layer. This may be achieved by doping a charge-transporting dopant into the layers of the emissive region. Thus, in preferred embodiments, the fluorescent layer, phosphorescent layer(s) and spacer layer are each doped with the charge transporting-dopant. “
“[0068] The charge-transporting dopant material may be selected from any material which facilitates the transport of holes or electrons across the emissive region when doped into the host material(s) or the emissive region, and which does not substantially interfere with emission from emissive layers.” Which corresponds to the applicant’s carrier transport layer because in paragraph [0057] of the instant application, it says, “For example, if the red light-emitting layer 704 is disposed on a side of the first blue light-emitting layer 706 facing toward the anode 1, a hole transport rate of the carrier transport layer 705 is greater than an electron transport rate of the carrier transport layer 705, that is, the carrier transport layer 705 mainly functions as a “hole transport layer”.” And therefore, as it is being claimed, the examiner is reading the “carrier transport layer” as a hole transport functioning layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use the teachings of Thompson for a hole transport rate of the carrier transport layer is greater than an electron transport rate of the carrier transport layer in order to “allow for optimal performance and the elimination of energy barriers to transport.” (Thompson, [0066])
Thompson does not disclose further comprising:
a first charge generation layer, disposed on a side of the first light emitter along a thickness direction of the display panel;
a second light emitter, disposed between the anode and the cathode and on a side of the first charge generation layer away from the first light emitter, wherein the second light emitter is capable of emitting green light.
a second charge generation layer, disposed on a side of the second light emitter away from the first charge generation layer; and
a third light emitter, disposed between the anode and the cathode and on a side of the second charge generation layer away from the second light emitter, wherein the third light emitter is capable of emitting blue light.
However, Song discloses:
a first charge generation layer (190), disposed on a side of the first light emitter (BS2) along a thickness direction of the display panel (OS); ([0053], Fig. 1)
a second light emitter (RGS), disposed between the anode (110) and the cathode (240) and on a side of the first charge generation layer (190) away from the first light emitter (BS2), wherein the second light emitter (RGS), is capable of emitting green light (per [0058]). (Fig. 1)
a second charge generation layer (150), disposed on a side of the second light emitter (RGS) away from the first charge generation layer (190); ([0053], Fig. 1) and
a third light emitter (BS1), disposed between the anode (110) and the cathode (240) and on a side of the second charge generation layer (150) away from the second light emitter (RGS), wherein the third light emitter (BS1) is capable of emitting blue light. ([0058], Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Song to arrive at the claimed invention in order to “express uniform color coordinates of white.” (Song, [0011])
Regarding claim 18, Thompson discloses the display panel of claim 1, wherein
the red light-emitting layer (per [0019] and [0061], Fig. 4 and 7B) is disposed on a side of the first blue light-emitting layer (per [0019] and [0061], Fig. 4 and 7B) facing toward the reflection electrode (anode); (Fig. 4 and 7B)
Thompson does not explicitly disclose:
a distance between the first blue light-emitting layer and the reflection electrode is 192 nm to 240 nm.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use the teachings of Thompson to arrive at a distance between the first blue light-emitting layer and the reflection electrode is 192 nm to 240 nm through routine experimentation per MPEP 2144.05 so as “to obtain desired structural and optical properties.” (Thompson, [0036])
Regarding claim 20, Song discloses the display panel of claim 14, wherein
the third light emitter (BS1) comprises a second blue light-emitting layer (BEML1)
Song does not explicitly disclose:
and a distance between the second blue light-emitting layer and the reflection electrode is 100 nm to 120 nm.
However, Song does disclose:
“[0090] In the white organic light emitting elements according to the second and third embodiments, the position of the light emitting layer in each light emitting stack may be set to a position where optimal resonance of the wavelength of light emitted by the light emitting layer occurs, and when the blue light emitting layers and other colored light emitting layers are located in the stacks arranged in an order different from the order shown in FIG. 1 between the first and second electrodes 110 and 240, the distances between the respective light emitting layers and the first electrode 110 may be adjusted by changing the thickness of the adjacent charge generation layer 150 or 190 or the thicknesses of the hole transport units 120 and 210.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use the teachings of Song to arrive a distance between the second blue light-emitting layer and the reflection electrode is 100 nm to 120 nm through routine experimentation per MPEP 2144.05 in order to “express uniform color coordinates of white.” (Song, [0011])
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (US 20080102310 A1) in view of Song et al. (US 20210175456 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ohsawa et al. (US 20150155511 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Thompson in view of Song disclose the display panel of claim 1. Thompson in view of Song do not disclose wherein
the red light-emitting layer is disposed on a side of the first blue light-emitting layer away from the reflection electrode; a distance between the red light-emitting layer and the reflection electrode is 350 nm to 370 nm.
However, Ohsawa discloses:
the red light-emitting layer (113c) is disposed on a side of the first blue light-emitting layer (113a) away from the reflection electrode (101); ([0155], Fig. 1A)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use the teachings of Thompson, Song and Ohsawa for the red light-emitting layer is disposed on a side of the first blue light-emitting layer away from the reflection electrode so that “a favorable color rendering property can be obtained” (Ohsawa, [0155])
Ohsawa does not explicitly disclose:
a distance between the red light-emitting layer and the reflection electrode is 350 nm to 370 nm.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use the teachings of Thompson, Song and Ohsawa to arrive at a distance between the red light-emitting layer and the reflection electrode is 350 nm to 370 nm through routine experimentation per MPEP 2144.05 so as “to obtain desired structural and optical properties.” (Thompson, [0036])
Regarding claim 19, Thompson in view of Song disclose the display panel of claim 1. Thompson in view of Song do not disclose wherein
the red light-emitting layer is disposed on a side of the first blue light-emitting layer away from the reflection electrode; a distance between the first blue light-emitting layer and the reflection electrode is 320 nm to 368 nm.
However, Ohsawa discloses:
the red light-emitting layer (113c) is disposed on a side of the first blue light-emitting layer (113a) away from the reflection electrode (101); ([0155], Fig. 1A)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use the teachings of Thompson, Song and Ohsawa for the red light-emitting layer is disposed on a side of the first blue light-emitting layer away from the reflection electrode so that “a favorable color rendering property can be obtained” (Ohsawa, [0155])
Ohsawa does not explicitly disclose:
a distance between the first blue light-emitting layer and the reflection electrode is 320 nm to 368 nm.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use the teachings of Thompson, Song and Ohsawa to arrive at a distance between the first blue light-emitting layer and the reflection electrode is 320 nm to 368 nm through routine experimentation per MPEP 2144.05 so as “to obtain desired structural and optical properties.” (Thompson, [0036])
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ASHLEY BLACKWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-1600.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at 469-295-9060. 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.
/ASHLEY NICOLE BLACKWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights