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 Amendment
The Amendment filed May 06, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-14 and 29-34 remain pending in the application.
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 1-2, 4, 6-13, 29-32, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et. al (US 20130153870 A1), hereinafter Seo, in view of Jang et. al. (US 20180033994 A1), hereinafter Jang, in further view of Cho et. al. (US 20130181195 A1), hereinafter Cho, in further view of Kum et. al. (US 20200052234 A1), hereinafter Kum, in further view of Zhang (US 20230055663 A1), with supporting information from You et. al. (US 20190181369 A1), hereinafter You.
Regarding claim 1, Seo teaches a white light emitting device (not shown, [0033]), comprising: an optical compensation layer (Fig 2 light compensation layer 27, [0040]) on a substrate (Fig 2 first substrate 16, [0036]); a cathode (Fig 2 pixel electrode 21, [0042]) having a first surface (Fig 2) abutting the optical compensation layer (Fig 2 light compensation layer 27, [0040]); an anode (Fig 2 common electrode 25, [0047]) opposite to a second surface (Fig 2) of the cathode (Fig 2 pixel electrode 21, [0042]); and an intermediate functional layer (Fig 2 organic light emitting unit 23, [0046]) between (Fig 2) the second surface of the cathode (Fig 2 pixel electrode 21, [0042]) and the anode (Fig 2 common electrode 25, [0047]).
Seo fails to teach the intermediate functional layer comprises a plurality of stacks divided by one or more charge generation layers; one of the plurality of stacks is a first stack comprising a first electron transport layer, a blue emission layer and a first hole transport layer sequentially stacked; another stack of the plurality of stacks is a second stack comprising a plurality of emission layers to emit lights having different wavelengths longer than a wavelength of the blue emission layer; and the first electron transport layer is closer to the optical compensation layer than the first hole transport layer is to the optical compensation layer; the optical compensation layer has a refractive index equal to or greater than an average refractive index of the intermediate functional layer; and the first electron transport layer of the first stack is thinner than an electron transport layer of the second stack.
However, Jang teaches the intermediate functional layer (Fig 1 white organic light emitting device, [0052] corresponds to Seo: Fig 2 light compensation layer 27, [0040]) comprises a plurality of stacks (Fig 1 first to third stacks 200, 300 and 400, [0052]) divided by one or more charge generation layers (Fig 1 charge generation layer 510 and 520, [0081]); one of the plurality of stacks (Fig 1 first to third stacks 200, 300 and 400, [0052]) is a first stack (Fig 1 first stack 200, [0082]) comprising a first electron transport layer (Fig 1 first common layer 220, [0082]), a blue emission layer (blue, [0082]) and a first hole transport layer (Fig 1 second common layer 230, [0082]) sequentially stacked (Fig 1;See note below regarding rearranging parts); another stack of the plurality of stacks (Fig 1 second stack 300, [0082]) is a second stack comprising a plurality of emission layers (Fig 1 red emission layer 310 and green emission layer 320, [0081]) to emit lights having different wavelengths longer (red and green, [0081]) than a wavelength of the blue emission layer (blue, [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seo to incorporate the teachings of Jang by having the white organic light emitting device structure taught by Jang. This would enable an increased device lifespan ([0013]).
Seo fails to teach the first electron transport layer is closer to the optical compensation layer than the first hole transport layer is to the optical compensation layer.
However, Seo teaches it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a light emitting device is formed with a light emitting unit between two electrodes ([0011]). Similarly, Jang teaches it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a light emitting device is formed with a light emitting unit between two electrodes ([0052]). Zhang teaches light emitting devices can be placed on either side of the driving transistor (Figs 7-10, [0106]-[0113]). Furthermore, You teaches light emission stack structures may be inverted and formed in a reverse structure.
Regarding the choice to place the light emitting device on the drain side of the driving transistor such that the cathode is connected to the drain, this particular location would have been obvious to try. As stated above, Zhang teaches the driving circuit for a light emitting device can be placed on either side of the light emitting device for applying the voltage. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that the light emitting device would be driven equally, regardless of which side of the driving transistor it was placed. That is, "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421.
In changing the placement of the light emitting device, the corresponding carrier transport/generation/injection layers would have to be moved to ensure proper operation of the light emitting device, as suggested by You.
Upon modification of placement, the first electron transport layer (Jang: Fig 1 first common layer 220, [0082]) would be closer to the optical compensation layer (Seo: Fig 2 light compensation layer 27, [0040]) than the first hole transport layer (Jang: Fig 1 second common layer 230, [0082]) would be to the optical compensation layer (Seo: Fig 2 light compensation layer 27, [0040]).
It is noted for clarity of the record that Seo teaches a plurality of light emitting layers deposited on one another to form a structure that emits white light, including charge transport layer, but does not have further details in the arrangement ([0046]).
Seo and Jang fail to teach the optical compensation layer has a refractive index equal to or greater than an average refractive index of the intermediate functional layer; and the first electron transport layer of the first stack is thinner than an electron transport layer of the second stack.
However, Cho teaches a refractive index of an organic light emitting layer in an organic light emitting diode may vary according to wavelengths of light and generally ranges from about 1.6 to about 1.9 ([0008]). Further, Cho teaches charge transfer and charge injection layers were designated as an organic light emitting layer ([0045]). Cho also teaches an electrode made of Indium Tin Oxide with a refractive index of 1.9-2.0; this range reduces issues of reflection between the organic light emitting layer and the electrode ([0008]). Additionally, Cho teaches that having refractive indexes lower than that of the electrode and organic light emitting layer can cause light to be refracted away from the outside; lowering the light emitted externally ([0008]). Seo teaches the compensation layer is made of SiNx, Indium Tin Oxide, Indium Zinc Oxide, or the like having a refractive index of 1.5-2.7 ([0013]). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have used the teachings of Cho and chosen materials such that the optical compensation layer has a refractive index equal to or greater than an average refractive index of the intermediate functional layer to reduce the amount of light reflected internally as taught by Cho with a reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Seo, Jang, and Cho fail to teach the first electron transport layer of the first stack is thinner than an electron transport layer of the second stack.
However, Kum teaches when an electron transport layer is electrically contacting another layer with higher electron mobility there could be some blockage of electron transport leading to reduced emitting efficiency ([0097]). Further, Kum teaches reducing the thickness of the electron transport layer to provide a tunneling effect to reduce the electron transport blockage ([0098]). The thickness of the first electron transport layer is therefore a result-effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the thickness of the electron transport layer as Kum has identified the thickness as a result-effective variable. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a thickness of the first electron transport layer of the first stack is thinner than an electron transport layer of the second stack, in order to achieve the desired balance between the amount of electrons being able to move to the emission layer and the function of the electron transport layer, as taught by Kum. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed thickness is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed dimensions).
Regarding claim 2, Seo as modified in claim 1 teaches the optical compensation layer (Seo: Fig 2 light compensation layer 27, [0040]) is transparent (Seo: [0040]) and is thicker (Seo: light compensation layer 1500Å-2000Å, [0040]; pixel electrode, 500 Å, [0044]) than the cathode (Seo: Fig 2 pixel electrode 21, [0042]).
Regarding claim 4, Seo as modified in claim 1 teaches the optical compensation layer (Seo: Fig 2 light compensation layer 27, [0040]) has a refractive index greater (Seo: the light compensation layer is made of SiNx, ITO, or IZO [0040] and the cathode is made of ITO or IZO [0044]; it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use SiNx as the compensation layer and ITO for the cathode to enhance the viewing angle characteristic [0017]; once that is done, the property differences of the limitation are met) than a refractive index of the cathode (Seo: Fig 2 pixel electrode 21, [0042]).
Regarding claim 6, Seo as modified in claim 1 teaches the optical compensation layer (Seo: Fig 2 light compensation layer 27, [0040]) is a transparent electrode (Seo: [0040]) having a refractive index greater (Seo: the light compensation layer is made of SiNx, ITO, or IZO [0040] and the cathode is made of ITO or IZO [0044]; it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use SiNx as the compensation layer and ITO for the cathode to enhance the viewing angle characteristic [0017]; once that is done, the property differences of the limitation are met) than a refractive index of the cathode (Seo: Fig 2 pixel electrode 21, [0042]).
Regarding claim 7, Seo as modified in claim 1 teaches the optical compensation layer (Seo: Fig 2 light compensation layer 27, [0040]) comprises a silicon nitride film (Seo: SiNx, [0040] or an indium zinc oxide (Seo: IZO, [0040].
Regarding claim 8, Seo as modified in claim 1 teaches an organic dielectric film (Seo: Fig 2 second insulating layer 26, [0039]) between the substrate (Seo: Fig 2 first substrate 16, [0036]) and the optical compensation layer (Seo: Fig 2 light compensation layer 27, [0040]).
Regarding claim 9, Seo as modified in claim 8 teaches a color conversion layer (Seo: Fig 2 color filter layer 17, [0038]) between the organic dielectric film (Seo: Fig 2 second insulating layer 26, [0039]) and the substrate (Seo: Fig 2 first substrate 16, [0036]).
Regarding claim 10, Seo as modified in claim 1 teaches light generated in the intermediate functional layer is for being transmitted through the substrate via the cathode and the optical compensation layer.
The recitation calling for light generated in the intermediate functional layer is for being transmitted through the substrate via the cathode and the optical compensation layer does not distinguish over the cited reference regardless of the function allegedly performed by the claimed device, because only the device per se is relevant, no matter which of the device’s functions is referred to in the claim, and if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended function, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967). In the instant application, the anode of the instant application is made of a reflective material ([0077]). The anode (Seo: Fig 2 common electrode 25, [0047]) of Seo is similarly formed from reflective materials ([0047]). Thus, the light generated in the intermediate functional layer (Seo: Fig 2 organic light emitting unit 23, [0046]) is for being transmitted through the substrate (Seo: Fig 2 first substrate 16, [0036]) via the cathode (Seo: Fig 2 pixel electrode 21, [0042]) and the optical compensation layer (Seo: Fig 2 light compensation layer 27, [0040]).
Regarding claim 11, Seo as modified in claim 2 teaches the cathode (Seo: Fig 2 pixel electrode 21, [0042]) comprises a transparent electrode (Seo: ITO or IZO is transparent, [0044]) having a thickness of 100 A to 700 A (Seo: 500 Å, [0044]).
Regarding claim 12, Seo as modified in claim 2 teaches the optical compensation layer (Seo: Fig 2 light compensation layer 27, [0040]) has a thickness of 1100 A to 2400 A (Seo: 1500Å-2000Å, [0040]).
Regarding claim 13, Seo as modified in claim 1 teaches the intermediate functional layer (Jang: Fig 1 white organic light emitting device, [0052] corresponds to Seo: Fig 2 light compensation layer 27, [0040]) further comprises a third stack (Jang: Fig 1 third stack 400, [0052]) comprising a blue emission layer (Jang: blue, [0053]).
Regarding claim 29, Seo as modified in claim 1 teaches the cathode (Zhang: Fig 9 and 10 electrode 131, [0112] corresponds to Seo: Fig 2 pixel electrode 21, [0042]) is connected to a driving transistor (Zhang: Fig 9 driving thin film transistor DTFT, [0106])Seo: Fig 1 driving thin-film transistor Td, [0028]) and the anode (Zhang: Fig 9 and 10 electrode 132, [0112] corresponds to Seo: Fig 2 pixel electrode 25, [0047]) is connected to a driving supply voltage line (Zhang: power supply voltage VDD, [0113] corresponds to Seo: power line P, [0028]).
Regarding claim 30, Seo as modified in claim 1 teaches the cathode (Zhang: Fig 9 and 10 electrode 131, [0112] corresponds to Seo: Fig 2 pixel electrode 21, [0042]) is connected to a drain electrode (Zhang: Fig 9 drain d, [0112]) of a driving transistor (Zhang: Fig 9 driving thin film transistor DTFT, [0106])Seo: Fig 1 driving thin-film transistor Td, [0028]) and a source electrode (Zhang: Fig 9 source s, [0112]) of the driving transistor (Zhang: Fig 9 driving thin film transistor DTFT, [0106])Seo: Fig 1 driving thin-film transistor Td, [0028]) is connected to a ground supply voltage line (Fig 9 unlabeled ground).
Regarding claim 31, Seo as modified in claim 1 teaches the cathode (Zhang: Fig 9 and 10 electrode 131, [0112] corresponds to Seo: Fig 2 pixel electrode 21, [0042]) is connected to a driving transistor (Zhang: Fig 9 driving thin film transistor DTFT, [0106])Seo: Fig 1 driving thin-film transistor Td, [0028]) and the driving transistor (Seo: Fig 1 driving thin film transistor Td, [0031]) comprises an oxide semiconductor layer (Seo: Fig 2 transparent oxide semiconductor layer 12R/G/B, [0037]).
Regarding claim 32, Seo as modified din claim 1 teaches the one or more charge generation layers (Jang: Fig 1 charge generation layers 510 and 520, [0083]) comprise a p-type charge generation layer (Jang: Fig 1 charge generation layers 510b and 520b, [0083]) and an n-type charge generation layer (Jang: Fig 1 charge generation layers 510a and 520a, [0083]) on the p-type charge generation layer (Jang: Fig 1 charge generation layers 510b and 520b, [0083]).
Seo as modified in claim 1 fails to teach the p-type charge generation layer is disposed adjacent to the optical compensation layer and the n-type charge generation layer is disposed adjacent to the anode.
However, in rearranging the placement of the driving transistor and light emitting element, the p-type and n-type charge generation layers would also have to be rearranged. Thus, the p-type charge generation layer would be disposed adjacent to the optical compensation layer and the n-type charge generation layer would be disposed adjacent to the anode.
Regarding claim 34, Seo as modified in claim 1 teaches the first electron transport layer (Jang: Fig 1 first common layer 220, [0082]) is thinner than (upon modification by Kum, the first electron transport layer would be 30 to 150 Å, [0099]; the optical compensation layer of Seo is 1500 to 2000Å, [0040]) the optical compensation layer (Seo: Fig 2 light compensation layer 27, [0040]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et. al (US 20130153870 A1), hereinafter Seo, in view of Jang et. al. (US 20180033994 A1), hereinafter Jang, in further view of Cho et. al. (US 20130181195 A1), hereinafter Cho, in further view of Kum et. al. (US 20200052234 A1), hereinafter Kum, , in further view of Zhang (US 20230055663 A1), in further view of Galan et. al. (US 20220231234 A1), hereinafter Galan.
Seo as modified in claim 1 teaches the cathode (Seo: Fig 2 pixel electrode 21, [0042]) is in contact with (modification by Jang) the first electron transport layer (Jang: Fig 1 first common layer 220, [0082]) and spaced from (modification by Jang) the blue emission layer (Jang: blue, [0082]); a thickness of the optical compensation layer (Seo: Fig 2 light compensation layer 27, [0040]) is greater than a thickness (Seo: light compensation layer 1500Å-2000Å, [0040]; pixel electrode, 500 Å, [0044]) of the cathode (Seo: Fig 2 pixel electrode 21, [0042]).
Seo as modified in claim 1 fails to teach the thickness of the cathode is greater than or equal to a thickness of the first electron transport layer.
However, Galan teaches the thickness of the cathode (Fig 4 cathode electrode 190, [0459] corresponds to Seo: Fig 2 pixel electrode 21, [0042]) is greater than or equal to a thickness (cathode, [0441]; electron transport layer, [0431]) of the first electron transport layer (Fig 4 electron transport layer 161, [0459] corresponds to Jang: Fig 1 first common layer 220, [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seo, Jang, Cho, and Kum to incorporate the teachings of Galan by having the thickness of the cathode being greater than or equal to the thickness of the electron transport layer. This would improve the electron transport ability without substantially increasing the operating voltage ([0431]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et. al (US 20130153870 A1), hereinafter Seo, in view of Jang et. al. (US 20180033994 A1), hereinafter Jang, in further view of Cho et. al. (US 20130181195 A1), hereinafter Cho, , in further view of Zhang (US 20230055663 A1), in further view of Kum et. al. (US 20200052234 A1), hereinafter Kum, in further view of Lee et. al. (US 20160141538 A1), hereinafter Lee.
Seo as modified in claim 1 fails to teach the intermediate functional layer further comprises a further stack comprising a blue emission layer and another color emission layer abutting the blue emission layer of the further stack.
However, Lee teaches the intermediate functional layer (Fig 10 OLED 109, [0105] corresponds to Seo: Fig 2 organic light emitting unit 23, [0046]) further comprises a further stack (Fig 10 light emitting unit 240, [1032]) comprising a blue emission layer (Fig 10 light emitting layer 242, [0133]) and another color emission layer (Fig 10 light emitting layer 243, [0133]) abutting (Fig 10) the blue emission layer (Fig 10 light emitting layer 242, [0133]) of the further stack (Fig 10 light emitting unit 240, [1032]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seo, Jang, Cho and Kum to incorporate the teachings of Lee by having a further stack comprising a blue emission layer and another color emission layer abutting the blue emission layer of the further stack. This allows for improved light intensity of a blue color ([0141]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et. al (US 20130153870 A1), hereinafter Seo, in view of Jang et. al. (US 20180033994 A1), hereinafter Jang, in further view of Zhang (US 20230055663 A1), in further view of Lee et. al. (US 20160141538 A1), hereinafter Lee, in further view of Kum et. al. (US 20200052234 A1), hereinafter Kum.
Seo teaches a white light emitting device (not shown, [0033]), comprising: an optical compensation layer (Fig 2 light compensation layer 27, [0040]) on a substrate (Fig 2 first substrate 16, [0036]); a cathode (Fig 2 pixel electrode 21, [0042]) having a first surface (Fig 2) abutting the optical compensation layer (Fig 2 light compensation layer 27, [0040]); an anode (Fig 2 common electrode 25, [0047]) opposite to a second surface (Fig 2) of the cathode (Fig 2 pixel electrode 21, [0042]); and an intermediate functional layer (Fig 2 organic light emitting unit 23, [0046]) between (Fig 2) the second surface of the cathode (Fig 2 pixel electrode 21, [0042]) and the anode (Fig 2 common electrode 25, [0047]).
Seo fails to teach the intermediate functional layer comprises a plurality of stacks divided by one or more charge generation layers; one of the plurality of stacks is a first stack comprising a first electron transport layer, a blue emission layer and a first hole transport layer sequentially stacked; another stack of the plurality of stacks is a second stack comprising a plurality of emission layers to emit lights having different wavelengths longer than a wavelength of the blue emission layer; and first electron transport layer is closer to the optical compensation layer than the first hole transport layer is to the optical compensation layer; and the first electron transport layer of the first stack is thinner than an electron transport layer of the second stack.
However, Jang teaches the intermediate functional layer (Fig 1 white organic light emitting device, [0052] corresponds to Seo: Fig 2 light compensation layer 27, [0040]) comprises a plurality of stacks (Fig 1 first to third stacks 200, 300 and 400, [0052]) divided by one or more charge generation layers (Fig 1 charge generation layer 510 and 520, [0081]); one of the plurality of stacks (Fig 1 first to third stacks 200, 300 and 400, [0052]) is a first stack (Fig 1 first stack 200, [0082]) comprising a first electron transport layer (Fig 1 first common layer 220, [0082]), a blue emission layer (blue, [0082]) and a first hole transport layer (Fig 1 second common layer 230, [0082]) sequentially stacked (Fig 1); another stack of the plurality of stacks (Fig 1 second stack 300, [0082]) is a second stack comprising a plurality of emission layers (Fig 1 red emission layer 310 and green emission layer 320, [0081]) to emit lights having different wavelengths longer (red and green, [0081]) than a wavelength of the blue emission layer (blue, [0082]); and the electron transport layer (Fig 1 first common layer 220, [0082]) is adjacent (One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize the electron transport layer is placed on aside closer to the cathode to facilitate electron movement from the cathode) to the cathode (Fig 1 first electrode 110, [0082] corresponds to Seo: Fig 2 pixel electrode 21, [0042]) and is closer to the cathode (Fig 1 first electrode 110, [0082] corresponds to Seo: Fig 2 pixel electrode 21, [0042]) than to the anode (Fig 1 second electrode 120, [0082] corresponds to Seo: Fig 2 common electrode 25, [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seo to incorporate the teachings of Jang by having the white organic light emitting device structure taught by Jang. This would enable an increased device lifespan ([0013]).
Seo fails to teach the first electron transport layer is closer to the optical compensation layer than the first hole transport layer is to the optical compensation layer.
However, Seo teaches it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a light emitting device is formed with a light emitting unit between two electrodes ([0011]). Similarly, Jang teaches it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a light emitting device is formed with a light emitting unit between two electrodes ([0052]). Zhang teaches light emitting devices can be placed on either side of the driving transistor (Figs 7-10, [0106]-[0113]). Furthermore, You teaches light emission stack structures may be inverted and formed in a reverse structure.
Regarding the choice to place the light emitting device on the drain side of the driving transistor such that the cathode is connected to the drain, this particular location would have been obvious to try. As stated above, Zhang teaches the driving circuit for a light emitting device can be placed on either side of the light emitting device for applying the voltage. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that the light emitting device would be driven equally, regardless of which side of the driving transistor it was placed. That is, "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421.
In changing the placement of the light emitting device, the corresponding carrier transport/generation/injection layers would have to be moved to ensure proper operation of the light emitting device, as suggested by You
Upon modification of placement, the first electron transport layer (Jang: Fig 1 first common layer 220, [0082]) would be closer to the optical compensation layer (Seo: Fig 2 light compensation layer 27, [0040]) than the first hole transport layer (Jang: Fig 1 second common layer 230, [0082]) would be to the optical compensation layer (Seo: Fig 2 light compensation layer 27, [0040]).
It is noted for clarity of the record that Seo teaches a plurality of light emitting layers deposited on one another to form a structure that emits white light, including charge transport layer, but does not have further details in the arrangement ([0046]).
Seo and Jang fail to teach the intermediate functional layer further comprises a further stack comprising a blue emission layer and another color emission layer abutting the blue emission layer of the further stack; and the first electron transport layer of the first stack is thinner than an electron transport layer of the second stack.
However, Lee teaches a stack (Fig 10 light emitting unit 240, [1032]) comprising a blue emission layer (Fig 10 light emitting layer 242, [0133]) and another color emission layer (Fig 10 light emitting layer 243, [0133]) abutting (Fig 10) the blue emission layer (Fig 10 light emitting layer 242, [0133]). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be able to substitute the stack of Lee with the first or third stack of Jang with the results of the substitution being predictable. This would allow for improved light intensity of a blue color (Lee: [0141]). MPEP 2143(I)(B)
In modifying the Seo and Jang with the teachings of Lee the intermediate functional layer (Fig 10 OLED 109, [0105] corresponds to Seo: Fig 2 organic light emitting unit 23, [0046]) would comprise a further stack (Fig 10 light emitting unit 240, [1032]) comprising a blue emission layer (Fig 10 light emitting layer 242, [0133]) and another color emission layer (Fig 10 light emitting layer 243, [0133]) abutting (Fig 10) the blue emission layer (Fig 10 light emitting layer 242, [0133]) of the further stack (Fig 10 light emitting unit 240, [1032]).
Seo, Jang, and Lee fail to teach the first electron transport layer of the first stack is thinner than an electron transport layer of the second stack.
However, Kum teaches when an electron transport layer is electrically contacting another layer with higher electron mobility there could be some blockage of electron transport leading to reduced emitting efficiency ([0097]). Further, Kum teaches reducing the thickness of the electron transport layer to provide a tunneling effect to reduce the electron transport blockage ([0098]). The thickness of the first electron transport layer is therefore a result-effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the thickness of the electron transport layer as Kum has identified the thickness as a result-effective variable. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a thickness of the first electron transport layer of the first stack is thinner than an electron transport layer of the second stack, in order to achieve the desired balance between the amount of electrons being able to move to the emission layer and the function of the electron transport layer, as taught by Kum. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed thickness is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed dimensions).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et. al (US 20130153870 A1), hereinafter Seo, in view of Jang et. al. (US 20180033994 A1), hereinafter Jang, in further view of Cho et. al. (US 20130181195 A1), hereinafter Cho, in further view of Kum et. al. (US 20200052234 A1), hereinafter Kum, , in further view of Zhang (US 20230055663 A1), in further view of Song et. al. (US 20200161580 A1), hereinafter Song, with supporting information from You et. al. (US 20190181369 A1), hereinafter You.
Seo as modified in claim 1 fails to teach the plurality of emission layers of the second stack comprise a red emission layer, a yellowish green emission layer on the red emission layer and a green emission layer on the yellowish green emission layer.
However, Song teaches the plurality of emission layers of the second stack (Fig 10 second stack ST2, [0139] corresponds to Jang: Fig 1 second stack 300, [0082]) comprise a red emission layer (Fig 10 red-yellow-green emitting material layer RYG-EML 336, [0097] corresponds to Jang: Fig 1 red emission layer 310, [0081]), a yellowish green emission layer (Fig 10 yellow-green emitting material layer YG-EML 338, [0097]) on the red emission layer (Fig 10 red-yellow-green emitting material layer RYG-EML 336, [0097] corresponds to Jang: Fig 1 red emission layer 310, [0081]) and a green emission layer (Fig 10 green emitting material layer G-EML 340, [0097] corresponds to Jang: Fig 1 green emission layer 320, [0081]) on the yellowish green emission layer (Fig 10 yellow-green emitting material layer YG-EML 338, [0097]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seo, Jang, Cho, and Kum to incorporate the teachings of Song by having a a red emission layer, a yellowish green emission layer on the red emission layer and a green emission layer on the yellowish green emission layer. This would aid in increasing device lifetime ([0157]).
Seo as modified above fails to teach the electron transport layer of the second stack is in contact with the red emission layer and a hole transport layer of the second stack is in contact with the green emission layer.
However, in rearranging the placement of the driving transistor and the light emitting element, the carrier transport layers would also be rearranged. Thus, the electron transport layer of the second stack would be in contact with the red emission layer and a hole transport layer of the second stack would be in contact with the green emission layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see 35 USC §103 section beginning on page 8, filed May 06, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-14 under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kum et. al. (US 20200052234 A1) and Zhang (US 20230055663 A1).
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.
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN L LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5 pm (ET).
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, STEVEN GAUTHIER can be reached at (571)270-0373. 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.
/ALVIN L LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights