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 with respect to claim(s) presented have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 11, 15-18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levermore et al. [US PGPUB 20220235238] in view of Yoon.
Regarding claim 1, Levermore teaches a light-emitting element comprising:
a first electrode (115, Fig. 4);
a second electrode (155, Fig. 4);
a light-emitting layer (135, Fig. 4) provided between the first electrode and the second electrode and including a material having a perovskite structure (Para 70); and
at least one of:
an electron blocking layer (130, Fig. 4) provided between the first electrode and the light-emitting layer (Fig. 4) and configured to suppress migration of electrons from the light-emitting layer (Para 84) and a hole transport layer (125, Fig. 4) that is provided between the electron blocking layer and the first electrode (Fig. 4), or
a hole blocking layer (140, Fig. 4) provided between the second electrode and the light-emitting layer (Fig. 4) and configured to suppress migration of holes from the light-emitting layer (Para 84) and an electron transport layer (145, Fig. 4) that is provided between the hole blocking layer and the second electrode (Fig. 4).
Levermore does not specifically disclose that the hole transport layer includes a material different from a material of the electron blocking layer,
and the electron transport layer includes a material different from a material of the hole blocking layer.
Referring to the invention of Yoon, Yoon discloses a device similar to that of Levermore, wherein the hole transport layer includes a material (Para 96) different from a material of the electron blocking layer (Para 105), and
the electron transport layer (Para 101) includes a material different from a material of the hole blocking layer (Para 107).
In view of such teaching by Yoon, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the invention of Levermore comprise the teachings of Yoon at least based on the rationale of use of using known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way using (MPEP 2143.I.C) or applying known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143.I.D).
Regarding claim 2, Levermore teaches a light-emitting element wherein the material having the perovskite structure is a lead metal halide compound (Para 74).
Regarding claim 3, Levermore teaches a light-emitting element wherein the lead metal halide compound is represented by MPbX3, where M comprises Cs and MeNH3, and X comprises I, Br, and Cl (Para 74).
Regarding claim 7, Levermore teaches a light-emitting element wherein the first electrode is an anode electrode (Fig. 4) and the second electrode is a cathode electrode (Fig. 4), and
an electron affinity of the electron blocking layer is less than an electron affinity of the light-emitting layer (in view of the electron blocking layer suppressing electron migration from the light emitting layer).
Regarding claim 11, Levermore teaches a light-emitting element wherein the first electrode is an anode electrode (Fig. 4) and the second electrode is a cathode electrode (Fig. 4), and
an ionization potential of the hole blocking layer is greater than an ionization potential of the light-emitting layer (in view of the hole blocking layer confining holes within the light emitting layer).
Regarding claim 15, the modified invention of Levermore specifically in view of Yoon teaches a light-emitting device comprising:
a thin film transistor (Tr, Yoon, Para 76); and
the light-emitting element according to claim 1 electrically connected to the thin film transistor (Yoon, Fig. 1).
In view of such teaching by Yoon, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the light emitting element of Levermore comprise the teachings of Yoon in order to drive the light emitting element.
Regarding claim 16, the modified invention Levermore in view of Yoon teaches a light-emitting element further comprising one of:
a hole injection layer (120, Levermore, Fig. 4) provided between the hole transport layer and the first electrode (Levermore, Fig. 4), or
an electron injection layer (150, Levermore, Fig. 4) provided between the electron transport layer and the second electrode (Levermore, Fig. 4),
wherein the hole injection layer includes a material (Yoon, Para 95) different from the materials of the electron blocking layer (Yoon, Para 105) and the hole transport layer (Yoon, Para 96), and
the electron injection layer includes a material (Yoon, Para 103) different from the materials of the hole blocking layer (Yoon, Para 107) and the electron transport layer (Yoon, Para 101).
In view of such teaching by Yoon, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the invention of Levermore comprise the teachings of Yoon at least based on the rationale of use of using known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way using (MPEP 2143.I.C) or applying known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143.I.D).
Regarding claim 17, Levermore teaches a light-emitting element wherein the hole transport layer includes diphenylnaphthyldiamine (NPD) (Para 69).
Regarding claim 18, Levermore teaches a light-emitting element wherein the electron transport layer includes 4,7-diphenyl-1,10-phenanthroline (Bphen) (Para 80).
Regarding claim 20, Levermore teaches a light-emitting element wherein the electron injection layer includes LiF (Para 88).
Regarding claim 21, Levermore teaches a light-emitting element comprising: the electron blocking layer, the hole transport layer, the hole blocking layer, and the electron transport layer (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 22, Levermore teaches a light-emitting element further comprising:
a light-emitting element further comprising one of:
a hole injection layer (120, Levermore, Fig. 4) provided between the hole transport layer and the first electrode (Levermore, Fig. 4), and
an electron injection layer (150, Levermore, Fig. 4) provided between the electron transport layer and the second electrode (Levermore, Fig. 4),
wherein the hole injection layer includes a material (Yoon, Para 95) different from the materials of the electron blocking layer (Yoon, Para 105) and the hole transport layer (Yoon, Para 96), and
the electron injection layer includes a material (Yoon, Para 103) different from the materials of the hole blocking layer (Yoon, Para 107) and the electron transport layer (Yoon, Para 101).
In view of such teaching by Yoon, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the invention of Levermore comprise the teachings of Yoon at least based on the rationale of use of using known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way using (MPEP 2143.I.C) or applying known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143.I.D).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levermore in view of Yoon and further in view of Parthasarathy et al. [US PGPUB 20150034910] (hereinafter Parthasarathy).
Regarding claim 8, Levermore teaches a light-emitting element wherein the first electrode is an anode electrode and the second electrode is a cathode electrode (Fig. 4).
The modified invention does not specifically disclose that the hole blocking layer includes 4,4'-bis(N-carbazolyl)-1,1'-biphenyl.
Referring to the invention of Parthasarathy, Parthasarathy teaches that a hole blocking layer can comprise similar organic material such as those disclosed by Shibata, or others to include 4,4'-bis(N-carbazolyl)-1,1'-biphenyl (Para 13).
In view of such teaching by Parthasarathy, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified invention comprise the teachings of Parthasarathy at least based on the rationale of simple substitution of one known element/structure with a suitable another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143.I.B).
Regarding claim 9, the modified invention specifically in view of Parthasarathy teaches a light-emitting element wherein the hole blocking layer further includes an n-type semiconductor material (Parthasarathy, i.e., in view of Suitable materials for the hole blocking layer include phenanthroline compounds, ….as well as a range of metal oxides, such as TiO.sub.2, ZnO, Ta.sub.2O.sub.5, and ZrO.sub.2.).
Regarding claim 10, the modified invention specifically in view of Parthasarathy teaches a light-emitting element wherein the n-type semiconductor material includes at least one type selected from a group of CsCO3, ZnO, and TiO2 (Para 13).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levermore in view oy Yoon and further in view of Takeda et al. [US PGPUB 20210139496] (hereinafter Takeda).
Regarding claim 4, Levermore teaches wherein the first electrode is an anode electrode and the second electrode is a cathode electrode (Fig. 4).
The modified invention does not specifically teach that the electron blocking layer includes 3- [4-(9-phenanthryl)-phenyl]-9-phenyl-9H-carbazole.
Referring to the invention of Takeda, Takeda teaches an electron blocking layer includes 3- [4-(9-phenanthryl)-phenyl]-9-phenyl-9H-carbazole (Para 335).
In view of such teaching by Takeda, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the material of the electron blocking layer of the modified invention includes 3- [4-(9-phenanthryl)-phenyl]-9-phenyl-9H-carbazole at least based on the rationale of using known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way using (MPEP 2143.I.C).
Regarding claim 5, the modified invention of Levermore specifically in view of Takeda teaches a light-emitting element wherein the electron blocking layer includes a p-type semiconductor material (i.e., molybdenum (VI) oxide (MoO3) in layer 112, where layer 112 is formed by co-evaporating 3-[4-(9-phenanthryl)-phenyl]-9-phenyl-9H-carbazole and molybdenum (VI) oxide (Para 335)).
Regarding claim 6, the modified invention of Levermore specifically in view of Takeda teaches a light-emitting element wherein the p-type semiconductor material is MoO3 or V205 (Para 335).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levermore in view of Yoon and further in view of Ide et al. [US PPGUB 20110127561] (hereinafter Ide).
Regarding claim 19, the modified invention of Levermore teaches the limitation of claim 1 upon which it depends.
The modified invention does not specifically disclose a light-emitting element wherein the hole injection layer includes diphenylnaphthyldiamine (NPD) and MoO3.
It is noted through that Lvermore disclose the hole injection layer including MoO3 (Para 86).
Referring to the invention of Ide, Ide teaches forming a hole injection layer in a light emitting device, wherein the hole injection layer includes diphenylnaphthyldiamine (NPD) and MoO3 (Para 89).
In view of such teaching by Ide, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified invention comprise the teachings of Ide at least based on the rationale of applying known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143.I.D), such as improving hole injection compared to when the layer is just MoO3.
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 ISMAIL A MUSE whose telephone number is (571)272-1470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM-5:00 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, William Partridge can be reached at (571)270-1402. 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.
/ISMAIL A MUSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812