DETAILED ACTION
This correspondence is in response to the communications received 10/26/2023. Claims 3, 4, 8-13, 15, and 16 have been amended. Claims 1-17 are pending. The abstract and specification have been amended.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/26/2023 has been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Applicant’s Claim to Figure Comparison
It is noted that this comparison is merely for the benefit of reviewers of this office action during prosecution, to allow for an understanding of the examiner’s interpretation of the Applicant’s independent claims as compared to disclosed embodiments in Applicant’s Figures. No response or comments are necessary from Applicant.
PNG
media_image1.png
861
473
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, a light-emitting element ("red light-emitting element 5R (first light-emitting element)" or "green light-emitting element 5G (second light-emitting element)" or "blue light-emitting element 5B (third light-emitting element)") comprising:
an anode (22);
a cathode (25);
a light-emitting layer (24R or 24G or 24B) provided between the anode and the cathode (see Fig. 3); and
a layer made of nickel hydroxide (24HI, see [0039]), the layer being provided between the anode and the light-emitting layer (see Fig. 3).
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishima (US 11,031,570 B2) in view of Beierlein et al. (US 7,122,254 B2).
PNG
media_image2.png
519
614
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Figs. 2 and 3 of Mishima disclose a light-emitting element (“organic EL element 2”, col. 9, line 37) comprising:
an anode (“pixel electrode (anode) 13”, col. 9, lines 39-40);
a cathode (“counter electrode (cathode) 20”, col. 9, lines 42-43);
a light-emitting layer (“organic light emitting layer 17”, col. 9, lines 41-42) provided between the anode and the cathode (as seen in Fig. 3, 17 is between 13 and 20); and
a layer made of nickel hydroxide (Mishima does not teach a layer made of nickel hydroxide, Mishima does disclose a “hole injection layer 15”, col. 9, lines 40-41 and a secondary reference will be used to modify this layer limitation below), the layer being provided between the anode and the light-emitting layer (as seen in Fig. 3, 15 is between 13 and 17).
Mishima fails to disclose “a layer made of nickel hydroxide”.
PNG
media_image3.png
407
459
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Fig. 1 of Beierlein teaches a layer made of nickel hydroxide (“composite inorganic layer 30”, col. 3, line 59, where “The Nickel layer 20 was exposed to a precursor and then exposed to an oxygen plasma. Examples of suitable precursors include Hydrogen and water. The exposure of the Nickel to the oxygen plasma created a relatively thick layer 30 composed of a mix of Nickel Hydroxide and Nickel Oxide on the surface of the Nickel”, col. 4, lines 11-16, where “The conductivity of the composite layer is increased by chemical interaction between the Nickel Oxide and Nickel Hydroxide. This permits efficient hole injection without introducing an insulating barrier”, col. 4, lines 38-41, thus 30 of Beierlein can be substituted for 15 of Mishima).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement “a layer made of nickel hydroxide” as taught by Beierlein in the system of Mishima for the purpose of improving hole injection while minimizing additional resistance in the device.
Regarding claim 3, Figs. 2 and 3 of Mishima in combination with Fig. 1 of Beierlein disclose the light-emitting element according to claim 1, Fig. 1 of Beierlein further discloses wherein the layer made of nickel hydroxide is a hole injection layer (as discussed above, “The conductivity of the composite layer [30] is increased by chemical interaction between the Nickel Oxide and Nickel Hydroxide. This permits efficient hole injection without introducing an insulating barrier”, col. 4, lines 38-41).
Figs. 2 and 3 of Mishima further disclose a hole transport layer (“hole transport layer 16”, col. 9, line 41) is further provided between the hole injection layer and the light-emitting layer (as seen in Fig. 3, 16 is between 15 and 17).
Regarding claim 6, Figs. 2-8 of Mishima disclose a method of manufacturing a display device (“Method of Manufacturing Organic EL Panel 10”, col. 13, line 21), comprising:
forming a thin film transistor layer on a substrate (“the TFT layer 112 is formed over the base material 111, to prepare the substrate 11”, col. 13, lines 30-32); and
forming a light-emitting element (“organic EL element 2”, col. 9, line 38, where the components of 2 are formed in Figs. 4A-4E, Figs. 5A-5D, and Figs. 7A-7D). on the thin film transistor layer (as seen in Fig. 3, 2 is on 112), the light-emitting element including an anode (“The pixel electrodes 13 each include a metallic layer formed using a light-reflective metallic material, and are formed over the interlayer insulating layer 12…In the present embodiment, the pixel electrode 13 functions as an anode”, col. 10, lines 15-23), a cathode (“The counter electrode 20 is formed over the IZO film 19, and functions as a cathode”, col. 12, lines 60-61), and a light-emitting layer (“organic light emitting layers 17 are formed in openings 14a, and have functions of emitting light in colors of R, G and B”, col. 11, lines 58-60) provided between the anode and the cathode (as seen in Fig. 3, 17 is between 13 and 20),
wherein
the forming a light-emitting element further includes forming a layer including nickel hydroxide (Mishima does not teach a layer made of nickel hydroxide, Mishima does disclose a “hole injection layer 15 is provided over the pixel electrode 13”, col. 11, lines 29-30 and a secondary reference will be used to modify this layer limitation below) between the anode and the light-emitting layer (as seen in Fig. 3, 15 is between 13 and 17).
Figs. 2-8 of Mishima of Mishima fail to disclose “wherein
the forming a light-emitting element further includes forming a layer including nickel hydroxide”.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Fig. 1 of Beierlein teaches wherein
the forming a light-emitting element further includes forming a layer including nickel hydroxide (“The Nickel layer 20 was exposed to a precursor and then exposed to an oxygen plasma. Examples of suitable precursors include Hydrogen and water. The exposure of the Nickel to the oxygen plasma created a relatively thick layer 30 composed of a mix of Nickel Hydroxide and Nickel Oxide on the surface of the Nickel”, col. 4, lines 11-16” where “The conductivity of the composite layer is increased by chemical interaction between the Nickel Oxide and Nickel Hydroxide. This permits efficient hole injection without introducing an insulating barrier”, col. 4, lines 38-41, thus 30 of Beierlein can be substituted for 15 of Mishima).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement “wherein
the forming a light-emitting element further includes forming a layer including nickel hydroxide” as taught by Beierlein in the system of Mishima for the purpose of improving hole injection while minimizing additional resistance in the device.
Regarding claim 7, Figs. 2-8 of Mishima in combination with Fig. 1 of Beierlein disclose method of manufacturing the display device according to claim 6, Fig. 1 of Beierlein further discloses wherein the layer including nickel hydroxide is a hole injection layer (as discussed above, “The conductivity of the composite layer [30] is increased by chemical interaction between the Nickel Oxide and Nickel Hydroxide. This permits efficient hole injection without introducing an insulating barrier”, col. 4, lines 38-41).
Figs. 2-8 of Mishima further disclose wherein
the forming a light-emitting element further includes forming a hole transport layer (“hole transport layers 16 are formed, for example, by a wet process using a material which is a polyolefin or its derivative or a polyarylamine or its derivative or the like and which does not have a hydrophilic group”, col. 11, lines 52-56) between the hole injection layer and the light-emitting layer (as seen in Fig. 3, 16 is between 15 and 17).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishima (US 11,031,570 B2) in view of Beierlein et al. (US 7,122,254 B2) in view of Matsuki et al. (US 20200091265 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Figs. 2 and 3 of Mishima further disclose a display device (“organic EL panel 10”) comprising:
a substrate (“substrate 11”, col 9, line 39);
a thin film transistor layer (“TFT layer 112”, col. 9, line 50) provided on the substrate (as seen in Fig. 3, 112 is on “base material 111”, col. 9, line 50 where 111 is part of 11); and
a plurality of the light-emitting elements according to claim 1 are provided on the thin film transistor layer (as seen in Fig. 3, a plurality of the light-emitting elements, “organic EL elements 2(R), 2(G) and 2(B)”, col. 9, line 33, according to claim 1 disclosed by Figs. 2 and 3 of Mishima in combination with Fig. 1 of Beierlein are provided on 112);
wherein
the plurality of the light-emitting elements include a first light-emitting element (2(R)), a second light-emitting element (2(G)), and a third light-emitting element (2(B) where “R (red), G (green) and B (blue) (hereinafter referred also to simply as R, G and B)”, col. 8, lines 49-51),
the first light-emitting element includes a first light-emitting layer as the light-emitting layer (“organic light emitting layers 17(R)”, col. 11, lines 63-64, and as seen in Fig. 3, 17(R) corresponds to 2(R)),
the second light-emitting element includes, as the light-emitting layer, a second light-emitting layer (“organic light emitting layers 17(G)”, col. 11, lines 63-64, and as seen in Fig. 3, 17(G) corresponds to 2(G)) having a light-emission peak wavelength different from a light-emission peak wavelength of the first light-emitting layer (Mashima does not specify the light-emission peak wavelengths beyond disclosing the color, however, a secondary reference will be utilized to teach this below), and
the third light-emitting element includes, as the light-emitting layer, a third light-emitting layer (“organic light emitting layers 17(B)”, col. 11, lines 63-64, and as seen in Fig. 3, 17(B) corresponds to 2(B)) having a light-emission peak wavelength different from the light-emission peak wavelengths of the respective first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting layer (Mashima does not specify the light-emission peak wavelengths beyond disclosing the color, however, a secondary reference will be utilized to teach this below).
Mashima in combination with Beierlein does not specify “a second light-emitting layer having a light-emission peak wavelength different from a light-emission peak wavelength of the first light-emitting layer, and
a third light-emitting layer having a light-emission peak wavelength different from the light-emission peak wavelengths of the respective first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting layer.”
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Fig. 1 of Matsuki teaches a second light-emitting layer having a light-emission peak wavelength (“the peak wavelength of the displayed red light region is in the range of 560 nm to 700 nm”, [0026], where the red light region of Matsuki is equivalent to 17(R) of Mishima) different from a light-emission peak wavelength of the first light-emitting layer (“the peak wavelength of the green light region is in the range of 500 nm to 560 nm”, [0026], where the green light region of Matsuki is equivalent to 17(G) of Mishima, thus 17(R) of Mishima has a different light-emission peak wavelength than 17(G) of Mishima) and
a third light-emitting layer having a light-emission peak wavelength (“the peak wavelength of the blue light region is in the range of 420 nm to 500 nm”, [0026], where the blue light region of Matsuki is equivalent to 17(B) of Mishima) different from the light-emission peak wavelengths of the respective first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting layer (thus 17(B) of Mishima has a different light-emission peak wavelength than 17(R) and 17(G) of Mishima).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement “a second light-emitting layer having a light-emission peak wavelength different from a light-emission peak wavelength of the first light-emitting layer, and
a third light-emitting layer having a light-emission peak wavelength different from the light-emission peak wavelengths of the respective first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting layer” as taught by Matsuki in the system of Mishima in combination with Beierlein for the purpose of forming a display device with a wide variety of colors.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishima (US 11,031,570 B2) in view of Beierlein et al. (US 7,122,254 B2) in view of Matsuki et al. (US 20200091265 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (US 20210066673 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Figs. 2 and 3 of Mishima in combination with Fig. 1 of Beierlein and Fig. 1 of Matsuki disclose the display device according to claim 4, Figs. 2 and 3 of Mishima further disclose wherein
in each of the first light-emitting element, the second light-emitting element, and the third light-emitting element, the anode is provided closer to the substrate than the cathode (as seen in Fig. 3, for each of 2(R), 2(G), and 2(B), 13 is closer to 11 than 20), and the layer made of nickel hydroxide is provided closer to the substrate than the light-emitting layer (as seen in Fig. 3, for each of 2(R), 2(G), and 2(B), 15 is closer to 11 than 17(R), 17(G), and 17(B), respectively, where 15 of Mishima is to be substituted with 30 of Beierlein).
Mishima in combination with Beierlein and Matsuki fails to disclose “wherein
each of the first light-emitting layer, the second light-emitting layer, and the third light-emitting layer is the light-emitting layer including a quantum dot”.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Fig. 3 of Zhang teaches wherein
each of the first light-emitting layer, the second light-emitting layer, and the third light-emitting layer is the light-emitting layer including a quantum dot (“the quantum-dot light emitting layers of different colors include a red quantum-dot light emitting layer, a green quantum-dot light emitting layer, and a blue quantum-dot light emitting layer”, [0076]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement “wherein
each of the first light-emitting layer, the second light-emitting layer, and the third light-emitting layer is the light-emitting layer including a quantum dot” as taught by Zhang in the system of Mishima in combination with Beierlein and Matsuki for the purpose of utilizing the benefits of quantum dot displays such as “a wide excitation spectrum range, a narrow fluorescence emission spectrum, good photostability, long fluorescence lifetime, and high quantum yield of fluorescence” (Zhang, [0003]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 8-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the light-emitting element or the method of manufacturing a display device as recited in the claims of the instant application.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art of Mishima (US 11,031,570 B2) in combination with Beierlein et al. (US 7,122,254 B2) discloses a light emitting element but fails to disclose the specific claims of the instant application regarding the structure of the layer made of nickel hydroxide e.g. “wherein the layer made of nickel hydroxide is a layered body of a plurality of thin film layers made of nickel hydroxide”. As the layer made of nickel hydroxide disclosed by Beierlein is formed via a plasma treatment performed on a base nickel layer, a multilayer nickel hydroxide structure would be incompatible with the prior art of Beierlein.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art of Mishima (US 11,031,570 B2) in combination with Beierlein et al. (US 7,122,254 B2) discloses a method of manufacturing a display device but fails to disclose the specific claims of the instant application regarding the formation of the layer made of nickel hydroxide e.g. “wherein the forming a layer including nickel hydroxide includes applying a solution including at least one of nickel acetate Ni(OCOCH3)2, nickel nitrate Ni(NO3)2, nickel sulfate NiSO4, and nickel perchlorate Ni(ClO4)2 and a solvent”. As the layer made of nickel hydroxide disclosed by Beierlein is formed via a plasma treatment performed on a base nickel layer, the required precursors would be incompatible with the prior art of Beierlein.
Claims 16 and 17 would be allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art of Mishima (US 11,031,570 B2) in combination with Beierlein et al. (US 7,122,254 B2) discloses a method of manufacturing a display device but fails to disclose the specific claims of the instant application regarding the formation of the layer made of nickel hydroxide e.g. “wherein the forming a layer including nickel hydroxide includes applying a solution including nickel acetate Ni(OCOCH3)2 and a solvent”. As the layer made of nickel hydroxide disclosed by Beierlein is formed via a plasma treatment performed on a base nickel layer, the required precursors would be incompatible with the prior art of Beierlein.
Claim 13 would be allowable by virtue of its dependence on claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of Mishima (US 11,031,570 B2) in combination with Beierlein et al. (US 7,122,254 B2) discloses a method of manufacturing a display device but fails to disclose the specific claims of the instant application regarding the formation of the layer made of nickel hydroxide e.g. “wherein the forming a layer including nickel hydroxide includes applying a solution including nickel sulfate NiSO4 and a solvent”. As the layer made of nickel hydroxide disclosed by Beierlein is formed via a plasma treatment performed on a base nickel layer, the required precursors would be incompatible with the prior art of Beierlein.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of Mishima (US 11,031,570 B2) in combination with Beierlein et al. (US 7,122,254 B2) discloses a method of manufacturing a display device but fails to disclose the specific claims of the instant application regarding the formation of the layer made of nickel hydroxide e.g. “wherein the forming a layer including nickel hydroxide includes applying a solution including nickel perchlorate Ni(ClO4)2”. As the layer made of nickel hydroxide disclosed by Beierlein is formed via a plasma treatment performed on a base nickel layer, the required precursors would be incompatible with the prior art of Beierlein.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art of Mishima (US 11,031,570 B2) in combination with Beierlein et al. (US 7,122,254 B2) discloses a method of manufacturing a display device but fails to disclose the specific claims of the instant application regarding the formation of the layer made of nickel hydroxide e.g. “wherein the forming a layer including nickel hydroxide includes applying a solution including nickel nitrate Ni(NO3)2 and a solvent”. As the layer made of nickel hydroxide disclosed by Beierlein is formed via a plasma treatment performed on a base nickel layer, the required precursors would be incompatible with the prior art of Beierlein.
Claims 14 and 15 would be allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN M KUPP whose telephone number is (571)272-5608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 am - 4:00 pm PT.
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, Yara Green can be reached at (571) 270-3035. 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.
/BENJAMIN MICHAEL KUPP/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893