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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CHOI et al. (US 2017/0098782), (hereinafter, CHOI).
PNG
media_image1.png
318
821
media_image1.png
Greyscale
RE Claim 1, CHOI discloses in FIGS. 1-9 an organic electroluminescent device “OLED” and display using the same. CHOI discloses a light emitting device comprising:
a first electrode that EL2 is a transmissive electrode, a semi-transmissive electrode, or a reflective electrode [0109, 0112 and 0113]. Examiner notes that in a bottom emission light emitting device, the first electrode EL2 is reflective [0113], hence meeting the claimed limitation. Furthermore, Examiner notes that “first” “or “second” are relative terms and can be used interchangeably such that the electrode EL2 can represent the first electrode, upon which the rest of the light emitting elements are formed as the layers stacking direction is shown above, hence corresponds to the claimed limitations;
a first electron transport layer ETL3 disposed on the first electrode EL2;
a second electron transport layer ETL2 disposed on the first electron transport layer ETL3;
an emission layer EML disposed on the second electron transport layer ETL2; and
a second electrode EL1 positioned on the emission layer EML, the second electrode that is a transmissive electrode, a “semi-transmissive” transflective electrode [0113], wherein the first electron transport layer ETL3 and the second electron transport layer ETL2 include different metal oxides [0087], and
a thickness of the first electron transport layer ETL3 is greater than a thickness of the second electron transport layer ETL2 [0087 and formula 2].
RE Claims 13 and 20, CHOI discloses in FIGS. 1-9 an organic electroluminescent device “OLED” and display using the same. CHOI discloses a light emitting device comprising:
a plurality of transistors “TFT1, TFT2” positioned on a substrate, referring to FIGS. 6 and 7; and
a plurality of light emitting devices “pixels” electrically connected to the plurality of transistors “TFT1, TFT2”, wherein the plurality of light emitting devices “pixels” PA include a first light emitting device, a second light emitting device, and a third light emitting device, each of the plurality of light emitting devices includes, referring to FIGS. 6 and 7 [0125-0135]:
a first electrode that EL2 is a transmissive electrode, a semi-transmissive electrode, or a reflective electrode [0109, 0112 and 0113]. Examiner notes that in a bottom emission light emitting device, the first electrode EL2 is reflective [0113], hence meeting the claimed limitation. Furthermore, Examiner notes that “first” “or “second” are relative terms and can be used interchangeably such that the electrode EL2 can represent the first electrode, upon which the rest of the light emitting elements are formed as the layers stacking direction is shown above, hence corresponds to the claimed limitations; and the first electrode EL2 is connected to the plurality of transistors “TFT1, TFT2”;
a first electron transport layer ETL3 disposed on the first electrode EL2;
a second electron transport layer ETL2 disposed on the first electron transport layer ETL3;
an emission layer EML disposed on the second electron transport layer ETL2; and
a second electrode EL1 positioned on the emission layer EML, the second electrode that is a transmissive electrode, a “semi-transmissive” transflective electrode [0113], wherein the first electron transport layer ETL3 and the second electron transport layer ETL2 include different metal oxides [0087], and
a thickness of the first electron transport layer ETL3 is greater than a thickness of the second electron transport layer ETL2 [0087 and formula 2].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 2-5, 10-12, 14, 15, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOI et al. (US 2017/0098782), (hereinafter, CHOI) in view of LI et al. (US 2021/0288281), (hereinafter, LI).
RE Claim 2, 3, 12, 14 and 19, CHOI does not disclose a light emitting device, wherein the first electron transport layer includes at least one of ZnO, TiO2, WO3, and SnO2 and/or at least one of ZnO, TiO2, WO3, and SnO2 doped with Mg, Y, Li, Ga, and Al.
However, in the same filed of endeavor, LI discloses a light emitting structure, including first and second electron transport layers, wherein a first electron transport layer 112 includes ZnMgO nanoparticles, and the second electron transport layer 122 includes ZnO nanoparticles or ZnMgO nanoparticles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to use ZnO and ZnMgO of LI as the first and second electron transport layer of CHOI in order to control the energy band structure as achieve optimum electron transport, hence optimized light emission performance.
RE Claim 4 and 5, CHOI does not disclose a light emitting device, wherein the thickness of the first electron transport layer is in a range of about 85 nm to about 250 nm, or wherein the thickness of the second electron transport layer is in a range of about 20 nm to about 40 nm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to the claimed thicknesses, absent unexpected results, since it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
RE Claims 10 and 11, CHOI discloses a light emitting device, further comprising:
a hole transport layer HTR disposed between the emission layer EML and the second electrode EL1, referring to FIG. 1.
However, CHOI does not disclose wherein a thickness of the hole transport layer is in a range of about 10 nm to about 30 nm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to the claimed thicknesses, absent unexpected results, since it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
RE Claims 15, CHOI discloses a light emitting device, wherein the first light emitting device “first pixel” is configured to emit red light [0131], and
CHOI discloses a light emitting device, wherein the thickness of the first electron transport layer included in the first light emitting device is in a range of about 85 nm to about 250 nm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to the claimed thicknesses, absent unexpected results, since it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
RE Claims 17, CHOI discloses a light emitting device, wherein the thickness of the second electron transport layer is in a range of about 20 nm to about 40 nm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to the claimed thicknesses, absent unexpected results, since it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Claim(s) 6-8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOI et al. (US 2017/0098782), (hereinafter, CHOI) in view of Lee et al. (US 2012/0018707), (hereinafter, Lee).
RE Claim 6 and 18, CHOI discloses a light emitting device, wherein the first and second electron transport layer are made of metal oxide.
CHOI does not disclose a light emitting device, wherein an electron mobility of the first electron transport layer is faster than an electron mobility of the second electron transport layer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses an OLED device, with first, second and third electron transport layers, wherein the mobility of the second electron transport layer is faster than the electron mobility of the first electron transport layer to achieve charge balance within the emission layer and controlling the electron injection barrier, hence the electron mobility of the first and second electron transport layers are result effective variables.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to the claimed electron mobilities of the electron transport layers, since the electron mobility is a result effective, absent unexpected results, in order to achieve charge balance withing the emission layer and improve the luminescence efficiency, since it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
RE Claim 7 and 8, CHOI does not disclose a light emitting device, wherein an electron mobility of the first electron transport layer is about 5 x 10-3 cm2V-1S-1 to about 5 x 10-5 cm2V-1S-1, or wherein an electron mobility of the first electron transport layer is about 1 x 10-3 cm2V-1S-1 to about 1 x 10-5 cm2V-1S-1.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses an OLED device, with first, second and third electron transport layers, wherein the mobility of the second electron transport layer is faster than the electron mobility of the first electron transport layer to achieve charge balance within the emission layer and controlling the electron injection barrier, hence the electron mobility of the first and second electron transport layers are result effective variables.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to the claimed electron mobilities of the electron transport layers, since the electron mobility is a result effective, absent unexpected results, in order to achieve charge balance withing the emission layer and improve the luminescence efficiency, since it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOI et al. (US 2017/0098782), (hereinafter, CHOI) in view of Park et al. (US 2022/0131108), (hereinafter, Park).
RE Claim 9, CHOI does not disclose a light emitting device, wherein light emitted from the emission layer is subjected to secondary resonance between the first electrode and the second electrode.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Park discloses a light-emitting device with reflective and semi-transparent electrode [0082 and 0174] and a reflective conductive materials [0081], wherein increasing resonance efficiency due to constructive interference of a light emission wavelength according to the generation of secondary resonance and a decrease in driving voltage according to the thickness of a hole transport region may be obtained by using an electrode, such as an anode, having a novel structure and a low driving voltage obtained according to a decrease in the thickness of a hole transport region.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to control the thickness of emission layer such that it is subjected to secondary resonance between the first electrode and the second electrode in order to enhance emission and reduce the driving voltage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YASSER ABDELAZIEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5783. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 6 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, Leonard Chang can be reached at (571)270-3691. 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.
/YASSER A ABDELAZIEZ, PhD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights