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 .
This is a Final office action based on application 18/033,494 in response to reply filed October 9, 2025. Claims 1-2, 7, 9, 11, 12, & 14-25 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 9, 16-19, 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (Chinese Publication 109768177) in view of Li (Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0266375) and Lee (Pre-Grant Publication 2008/0111480).
Regarding claim 1 & 2, Liu discloses a light emitting device comprising:
an anode (Fig. 3, 210) and a cathode (220) arranged oppositely, and a light-emitting function layer (350) located between the anode and the cathode;
the light-emitting function layer comprising a light-emitting layer (350), a first auxiliary function layer (310, 330, 340) located between the light-emitting layer and the anode, a second auxiliary function layer (360, 370, 380) located between the light-emitting layer and the cathode, and at least one co-doped layer (320); and
a difference in material physical properties between two film layers adjacent to the co-doped layer being greater than a set value such as an energy level potential barrier being greater than or equal to 0.2eV (Paragraph [0047]), and the co-doped layer comprising a material formed by mixing materials of the two adjacent film layers (Paragraph [0048]).
the first auxiliary function layer comprises an electron blocking layer (340); the light-emitting layer comprises a blue organic light-emitting material (B).
Liu does not explicitly disclose an energy level potential barrier between the electron blocking layer and the light-emitting layer is greater than 0.2 eV; and the co-doped layer comprises a co-doped layer located between the electron blocking layer and the light-emitting layer; wherein an HOMO value of the blue organic light-emitting material is 5.9 eV, and an HOMO value of the electron blocking layer is 5.5 eV. However, Lee discloses a light emitting device comprising:
A light emitting layer (Fig. 1b) and a LED structure can include an electron blocking layer (Paragraph [0039]) wherein a mixed buffer layer (Paragraph [0024]) can be formed between the light emitting layer and the electron blocking layer.
It would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to form the mixed buffer layer between light emitting layer and the electron blocking layer because it will facilitates hole injection from the hole transport layer to the light emitting layer (Paragraph [0024]) and lower driving voltage of the device to enhance the efficiency and lifetime of the device (Paragraph [0021]).
Li disclose a light emitting device comprising:
An electron blocking layer (Fig. 5, 151) and light emitting layer (13) that can be used in a blue emitting sub-pixel (Paragraph [0083]) wherein the HOMO value of the light emitting layer can be 5.7-6.1eV and the HOMO value of the electron blocking layer can be 5.6-5.9eV (Paragraph [0074]) therefore the energy potential barrier between the electron blocking layer and the light emitting layer can be greater than 0.2eV.
It would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to form the light emitting device having an emitting layer having a HOMO value of 5.7-6.1eV and the HOMO value of the electron blocking layer can be 5.6-5.9eV because it will provide a OLED/display panel having improve service life (Paragraph [0006]). Further although Li does not disclose the electron blocking layer is 5.5 eV it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to select a material for the electron blocking layer to achieve a desired HOMO/energy level and/or desired difference in HOMO/energy level between adjacent layers.
Regarding claim 7, Liu disclose all of the limitations of claim 2 (addressed above). Liu further discloses:
the second auxiliary function layer comprises an electron blocking layer (370) and hole blocking layer (360)
Liu does not explicitly disclose an energy level potential barrier between the hole blocking layer and the electron transport layer is greater than 0.2 eV; and the co-doped layer comprises a co-doped layer located between the hole blocking layer and electron transport layer; wherein an LUMO value of the electron transport layer is 3.0 eV, and an LUMO value of the hole blocking layer is 2.6 eV. However Lee discloses a light emitting device comprising:
An electron transport layer (Fig. 1b) and a LED structure can include an hole blocking layer (Paragraph [0039]) wherein a mixed buffer layer (Paragraph [0030]) can be formed between layers to facilitate injection of carriers between the layers (Paragraph [0024 & 0030]).
It would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to form the mixed buffer layer between the electron transport layer and the hole blocking layer because it will facilitate electron injection from the electron transport layer to the hole blocking layer (Paragraph [0030]) and lower driving voltage of the device to enhance the efficiency and lifetime of the device (Paragraph [0021]).
Li disclose a light emitting device comprising:
An electron transport layer (Fig. 5, 161) and hole blocking layer (143) wherein the LUMO value of the electron transport layer can be 2.7-3.0eV and the LUMO value of the hole blocking layer can be 2.7-3.2eV (Paragraph [0074]) therefore the energy potential barrier between the electron transport layer and the hole blocking layer can be greater than 0.2eV.
It would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to form the light emitting device having an electron transport layer having a LUMO value of 2.7-3.2eV and the LUMO value of the hole blocking layer can be 2.7-3.2eV because it will provide a OLED/display panel having improve service life (Paragraph [0006]). Further although Li does not disclose the hole blocking layer 2.6eV, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to select a material for the hole blocking layer to achieve a desired HOMO/energy level and/or desired difference in HOMO/energy level between adjacent layers.
Regarding claim 9, Liu disclose all of the limitations of claim 2 (addressed above). Liu further discloses:
the second auxiliary function layer comprises an hole blocking layer (360); the light-emitting layer comprises a green organic light-emitting material (G).
Liu does not explicitly disclose an energy level potential barrier between the hole blocking layer and the light-emitting layer is greater than 0.2 eV; and the co-doped layer comprises a co-doped layer located between the hole blocking layer and the light-emitting layer; wherein an LUMO value of the green organic light-emitting material is 2.3 eV, and an LUMO value of the hole blocking layer is 2.6 eV. However Lee discloses a light emitting device comprising:
A light emitting layer (Fig. 1b) and a LED structure can include an hole blocking layer (Paragraph [0039]) wherein a mixed buffer layer (Paragraph [0030]) can be formed between the light emitting layer and the hole blocking layer.
It would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to form the mixed buffer layer between light emitting layer and the hole blocking layer because it will facilitates hole injection from the hole transport layer to the light emitting layer (Paragraph [0030]) and lower driving voltage of the device to enhance the efficiency and lifetime of the device (Paragraph [0021]).
Li disclose a light emitting device comprising:
An hole blocking layer (Fig. 5, 141) and light emitting layer (13) that can be used in a green emitting sub-pixel (Paragraph [0083]) wherein the LUMO value of the light emitting layer can be 2.5-3.1eV and the LUMO value of the hole blocking layer can be 2.7-3.2eV (Paragraph [0074]) therefore the energy potential barrier between the electron blocking layer and the light emitting layer can be greater than 0.2eV.
It would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to form the light emitting device having an emitting layer having a LUMO value of 2.5-3.1eV and the LUMO value of the hole blocking layer can be 2.7-3.2eV because it will provide a OLED/display panel having improve service life (Paragraph [0006]). Further although Li does not disclose the hole blocking layer 2.6eV and the green light emitting layer is 2.3eV, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to select a material for the hole blocking layer and green light emitting layer to achieve a desired HOMO/energy level and/or desired difference in HOMO/energy level between adjacent layers.
Regarding claim 16, Liu further discloses:
a thickness of the co- doped layer is 3 nm to 10 nm (Paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 17-19, Liu, Lee and Li disclose all of the limitation of claims 1 & 16 (addressed above). Liu does not disclose the thickness of the co-doped layer is 5-8nm, a mass ratio of materials of the two adjacent film layers in the co-doped layer is 1:9 to 9:1, the mass ratio of the materials of the two adjacent film layers in the co-doped layer is 1:1. However Lee disclose a light emitting device comprising:
Mixed buffer layers wherein the buffer layers can have a thickness of 50-1000 ANG (5-100nm) (Paragraph [0036]).
A mass ratio of materials mixed in the buffer layers can be 1:9 to 9:1 (Paragraph [0035]).
A mass ratio of the materials mixed in the buffer layers can be 1:1 (Paragraph [0067-0070]).
It would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to form the thickness of the co-doped layer to be 5-8nm, have a mass ratio of materials of the two adjacent film layers in the co-doped layer is 1:9 to 9:1 or have a the mass ratio of the materials of the two adjacent film layers in the co-doped layer is 1:1 because the buffer layer will facilitates injection of carrier between layers (Paragraph [0024 & 0030]) and lower driving voltage to enhance efficiency and lifetime of the device (Paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 22, Liu further discloses:
a plurality of light-emitting devices (R, G, B) according to claims 1 (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 23, Liu further discloses:
the light-emitting devices comprise a blue light-emitting device (B), a green light-emitting device (G) and a red light-emitting device (R); and the blue light-emitting device comprises a first co-doped layer (320), and the green light- emitting device comprises a fifth co-doped layer (320).
Regarding claim 24, Liu further discloses:
an electron blocking layer (340); the light-emitting layer comprises a red organic light-emitting material (R).
Liu does not explicitly disclose a co-doped layer between an electron blocking layer and the light emitting layer. However, Lee disclose a light emitting device comprising:
A light emitting layer (Fig. 1b) and a LED structure can include an electron blocking layer (Paragraph [0039]) wherein a mixed buffer layer (Paragraph [0024]) can be formed between the light emitting layer and the electron blocking layer.
It would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to form the mixed buffer layer between light emitting layer and the electron blocking layer because it will facilitate hole injection from the hole transport layer to the light emitting layer (Paragraph [0024]) and lower driving voltage of the device to enhance the efficiency and lifetime of the device (Paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 25, Liu further discloses:
A display apparatus comprising the display panel according to claim 22 (Paragraph [0047]).
Claim(s) 11-12 & 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (Chinese Publication 109768177) in view of Li (Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0266375) and Lee (Pre-Grant Publication 2008/0111480) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Heo (Pre-Grant Publication 2013/0313535) and Kuwabara (Pre-Grant Publication 2021/0175423).
Regarding claim 11-12 & 14-15, Liu, Lee and Li disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 (addressed above). Neither reference explicitly discloses a difference in a carrier mobility between two film layers adjacent to the co-doped layer is greater than an order of magnitude. However Heo disclose an organic light emitting device comprising:
A mixed layer (Fig. 3, 116ab) formed between and form materials of a first and second hole transport layer (116a/116b) wherein the second hole transport layer has a lower carrier mobility greater than an order of magnitude than the first transport layer (Paragraph [0041 & 0061]).
It would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to form the mixed layer between the hole transporting layers to minimize the interfacial barrier between the layers thereby increasing hole mobility and increase recombination rate of holes and electrons in the light emitting layer (Paragraph [0061]). Further it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to form the mixed layer between the light emitting layer and hole transport layer to minimize an interfacial barrier that exist between the layers thereby increasing hole mobility.
Kuwabara discloses an organic electroluminescent device comprising:
A light emitting layer (Fig. 3, EML) having a host material such a TCTA (Paragraph [0132]).
A dopant/guest material can be aromatic/aniline luminophore such as perylene (Paragraph [0131]).
A hole transport layer (HTL) having a material such as triphenylamine (Paragraph [0059]).
An electron blocking layer (EBL) having a material such as carbazole compound (Paragraph [0060]).
A hole blocking layer (HBL) having a material such as BCP (Paragraph [0142]).
An electron blocking layer (ETL) having a material such as PBD (Paragraph [0140]).
Since the light emitting device of Kuwabara can include light emitting function layers between an anode and cathode including the materials as claimed above, the light emitting device of the prior art will also comprises an electron blocking layer/hole transporting layer having a hole mobility of 2.2×10-4 cm2/Vs and a green light emitting layer having hole mobility of 2.8×10-7 cm2/Vs, since it has been held where the claimed and prior art products are identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, claimed properties or functions are presumed inherent and a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) MPEP 2112.01 I and thereby form an organic light emitting device high efficiency and long service life (Kuwabara Paragraph [0006]).
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over over Liu (Chinese Publication 109768177) in view of Li (Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0266375) and Lee (Pre-Grant Publication 2008/0111480) as applied to claim 1 & 7 above, and further in view of Kuwabara (Pre-Grant Publication 2021/0175423).
Regarding claim 20 & 21, Liu, Lee, and li disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 & 7 (addressed above). Neither reference disclose host material in the blue organic light-emitting material is TCTA or Bphen, and a guest material in the blue organic light-emitting material is an aromatic or aniline luminophore; a material of the hole transport layer is a triphenylamine, butadiene or styryl triphenylamine compound, a material of the electron blocking layer is an aniline or carbazole compound, a material of the hole blocking layer is BCP, and a material of the electron transport layer is PBD or NCB. However Kuwabara discloses an organic electroluminescent device comprising:
A light emitting layer (Fig. 3, EML) having a host material such a TCTA (Paragraph [0132]).
A dopant/guest material can be aromatic/aniline luminophore such as perylene (Paragraph [0131]).
A hole transport layer (HTL) having a material such as triphenylamine (Paragraph [0059]).
An electron blocking layer (EBL) having a material such as carbazole compound (Paragraph [0060]).
A hole blocking layer (HBL) having a material such as BCP (Paragraph [0142]).
An electron blocking layer (ETL) having a material such as PBD (Paragraph [0140]).
It would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to form the layer of the organic light emitting device to comprising the materials claimed above because it will form an organic emitting device having high efficiency and long service life (Paragraph [0006]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 9, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argument regarding Lee not disclosing that a co-doped layer is located between the electron blocking layer and the light emitting layer is not considered persuasive because Lee discloses the buffer layers is a mixed layer made of the materials of adjacent layers such as the light emitting layer and transport/blocking layers (Paragraph [0024, 0031, 0039]). Since the buffer layer is made of a mix of the materials of the adjacent layers the buffer layer meets the limitations of a co-doped layer formed between an electron blocking layer and the light emitting layer. Further applicant argument of Li not disclosing the electron blocking layer having a HOMO value of 5.5eV is not considered persuasive because Li disclose the HOMO value of the electron blocking layer can be 5.6 and although Li does not explicitly disclose the electron blocking layer is 5.5 eV, absent a showing of criticality or new and unexpected results with respect to the HOMO value of the electron blocking layer being 5.5eV, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to select a material for the electron blocking layer to achieve a desired HOMO/energy level, such a 5.5eV, and/or a desired difference in HOMO/energy level between adjacent layers since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 IIA & 2144.05 I
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON C FOX whose telephone number is (571)270-5016. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, Jeff W Natalini can be reached at 571-272-2266. 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.
/BRANDON C FOX/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/DAVID VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818