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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-12, filed 02/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-20 under 102 and 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Wang et al. (CN110364635 A) and Zhou et al. (CN102683597A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, 11-13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US 20210242419 A1) in view of Wang et al. (CN110364635 A) and Zhou et al. (CN102683597A).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura discloses an organic light-emitting display panel, comprising:
an anode (12); (Fig. 1)
a cathode (18), arranged opposite to the anode (12); (Fig. 1)
a plurality of quantum well units (13, 15, 17), stacked between the anode (12) and the cathode (18), each of the quantum well units (13, 15, 17) comprising a light-emitting layer (132/152/172) and barrier layers (132, 133/151, 153/171,173) disposed on both sides of the light-emitting layer (132/152/172); (Fig. 1) and
a charge generation layer (at least 14), disposed between two adjacent ones of the plurality of quantum well units (13, 15, 17), configured to inject electrons into the light-emitting layer of each of some of the quantum well units located on a side of the charge generation layer, and configured to inject holes into the light-emitting layer of each of some of the quantum well units located on another side of the charge generation layer. ([0057], Fig. 1)
Nakamura does not disclose:
wherein two adjacent ones of the quantum well units that are not provided with the charge generation layer therebetween share a same one of the barrier layer; and
wherein the organic light-emitting display panel is not provided with hole injection layers or electron injection layers between the light-emitting layer of a closest one of the plurality of quantum well units to the anode and the light-emitting layer of a closest one of the plurality of quantum well units to the cathode.
However, Wang discloses:
wherein two adjacent ones of the quantum well units (42) that are not provided with the charge generation layer therebetween share a same one of the barrier layer (41); (Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Nakamura and Wang for wherein two adjacent ones of the quantum well units that are not provided with the charge generation layer therebetween share a same one of the barrier layer in order to “improve the quantum dot light emitting diode” (Wang)
Nakamura in view of Wang do not disclose:
wherein the organic light-emitting display panel is not provided with hole injection layers or electron injection layers between the light-emitting layer of a closest one of the plurality of quantum well units to the anode and the light-emitting layer of a closest one of the plurality of quantum well units to the cathode.
However, Zhou discloses:
wherein the organic light-emitting display panel is not provided with hole injection layers or electron injection layers between the light-emitting layer (311) of a closest one of the plurality of quantum well units (321/3122) to the anode (1) and the light-emitting layer (3222) of a closest one of the plurality of quantum well units (3222/321) to the cathode (2). ([0026], Fig. 2)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Nakamura, Wang and Zhou for wherein the organic light-emitting display panel is not provided with hole injection layers or electron injection layers between the light-emitting layer of a closest one of the plurality of quantum well units to the anode and the light-emitting layer of a closest one of the plurality of quantum well units to the cathode so that “ the light emitting efficiency is greatly improved.” (Zhou, [0027])
Regarding claim 2, Nakamura discloses the organic light-emitting display panel according to claim 1, wherein one quantum well unit (13) of the plurality of quantum well units (13, 15, 17) adjacent to the charge generation layer (at least 14) and close to the anode (12) comprises a first electron transport layer (133) serving as one of the barrier layers thereof, and one quantum well unit (15) of the plurality of quantum well units (13, 15, 17) adjacent to the charge generation layer (14) and close to the cathode (18) comprises a first hole transport layer (151) serving as one of the barrier layers thereof. (Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 3, Nakamura discloses the organic light-emitting display panel according to claim 2, wherein the charge generation layer (at least 14) comprises:
an n-type charge generation layer (141); (Fig. 1) and
a p-type charge generation layer (142), wherein the n-type charge generation layer (141) is disposed between the first electron transport layer (142) and the p-type charge generation layer (142) and the p-type charge generation layer (142) is disposed between the n-type charge generation layer (141) and the first hole transport layer (151). (Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 8, Nakamura Fig. 1 discloses the organic light-emitting display panel according to claim 1, further comprising a second hole transport layer (131) disposed on a side of the anode (12) adjacent to the cathode (18), (Fig. 1)
wherein one quantum well unit (15) of the plurality of quantum well units (13, 15, 17) immediately adjacent to the cathode (18) comprises a second electron transport layer (153) serving as one of the barrier layers thereof. (Fig. 1)
Nakamura Fig. 1 does not explicitly disclose:
wherein one quantum well unit of the plurality of quantum well units immediately adjacent to the anode comprises a third hole transport layer serving as one of the barrier layers thereof;
However, Nakamura Fig. 3 discloses:
wherein one quantum well unit (13A) of the plurality of quantum well units immediately adjacent to the anode (12) comprises a third hole transport layer (131B) serving as one of the barrier layers thereof; ([0272], Fig. 3)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Nakamura Fig. 1 and 3 for one quantum well unit of the plurality of quantum well units immediately adjacent to the anode comprises a third hole transport layer serving as one of the barrier layers thereof in order to “ lower the drive voltage and improve the lifetime.” (Nakamura, [0044])
Regarding claim 9, Nakamura Fig. 1 discloses the organic light-emitting display panel according to claim 1. Nakamura Fig. 1 does not disclose further comprising:
a second hole transport layer and a third hole transport layer stacked on a side of the anode adjacent to the cathode; and
a second electron transport layer and a third electron transport layer stacked on a side of the cathode adjacent to the anode, wherein
one quantum well unit of the plurality of quantum well units immediately adjacent to the anode comprises one of the second hole transport layer and the third hole transport layer away from the anode serving as one of the barrier layers thereof, and one quantum well unit of the plurality of quantum well units immediately adjacent to the cathode comprises one of the second electron transport layer and the third electron transport layer away from the cathode serving as one of the barrier layers thereof.
However, Nakamura Fig. 3 discloses:
further comprising: a second hole transport layer (131A) and a third hole transport layer (131B) stacked on a side of the anode (12) adjacent to the cathode (18); (Fig. 3) and
a second electron transport layer (153) and a third electron transport layer (173) stacked on a side of the cathode (18) adjacent to the anode (12), wherein
one quantum well unit (13A) of the plurality of quantum well units (13A, 15A, 17A) immediately adjacent to the anode (12) comprises one of the second hole transport layer (131A) and the third hole transport layer (131B) away from the anode (12) serving as one of the barrier layers thereof, and one quantum well unit (17A) of the plurality of quantum well units (13A, 15A, 17A) immediately adjacent to the cathode (18) comprises one of the second electron transport layer (173)
Nakamura Fig. 3 does not explicitly show:
And the third electron transport layer away from the cathode serving as one of the barrier layers thereof.
However, Nakamura discloses:
“[0054] The electron transporting zone may be provided by a single layer or a plurality of layers.” ([0054])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use the teachings of Nakamura to arrive at the claimed invention in order to “lower the drive voltage and improve the lifetime.” (Nakamura, [0044])
Regarding claim 10, Nakamura discloses the organic light-emitting display panel according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of each of the barrier layers (131, 133/151,153/171,173) is greater than or equal to 2 nanometers, and is less than or equal to 20 nanometers. ([0254])
Regarding claim 11, Nakamura discloses a display device, comprising an organic light-emitting display panel, wherein the organic light-emitting display panel comprises:
an anode (12); (Fig. 1)
a cathode (18), arranged opposite to the anode (12); (Fig. 1)
a plurality of quantum well units (13, 15, 17), stacked between the anode (12) and the cathode (18), each of the quantum well units (13, 15, 17) comprising a light-emitting layer (132/152/172) and barrier layers (132, 133/151, 153/171,173) disposed on both sides of the light-emitting layer (132/152/172); (Fig. 1) and
a charge generation layer (at least 14), disposed between two adjacent ones of the plurality of quantum well units (13, 15, 17), configured to inject electrons into the light-emitting layer of each of some of the quantum well units located on a side of the charge generation layer, and configured to inject holes into the light-emitting layer of each of some of the quantum well units located on another side of the charge generation layer. ([0057], Fig. 1)
Nakamura does not disclose:
wherein two adjacent ones of the quantum well units that are not provided with the charge generation layer therebetween share a same one of the barrier layer; and
wherein the organic light-emitting display panel is not provided with hole injection layers or electron injection layers between the light-emitting layer of a closest one of the plurality of quantum well units to the anode and the light-emitting layer of a closest one of the plurality of quantum well units to the cathode.
However, Wang discloses:
wherein two adjacent ones of the quantum well units (42) that are not provided with the charge generation layer therebetween share a same one of the barrier layer (41); (Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Nakamura and Wang for wherein two adjacent ones of the quantum well units that are not provided with the charge generation layer therebetween share a same one of the barrier layer in order to “improve the quantum dot light emitting diode” (Wang)
Nakamura in view of Wang do not disclose:
wherein the organic light-emitting display panel is not provided with hole injection layers or electron injection layers between the light-emitting layer of a closest one of the plurality of quantum well units to the anode and the light-emitting layer of a closest one of the plurality of quantum well units to the cathode.
However, Zhou discloses:
wherein the organic light-emitting display panel is not provided with hole injection layers or electron injection layers between the light-emitting layer (311) of a closest one of the plurality of quantum well units (321/3122) to the anode (1) and the light-emitting layer (3222) of a closest one of the plurality of quantum well units (3222/321) to the cathode (2). ([0026], Fig. 2)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Nakamura, Wang and Zhou for wherein the organic light-emitting display panel is not provided with hole injection layers or electron injection layers between the light-emitting layer of a closest one of the plurality of quantum well units to the anode and the light-emitting layer of a closest one of the plurality of quantum well units to the cathode so that “ the light emitting efficiency is greatly improved.” (Zhou, [0027])
Regarding claim 12, Nakamura discloses the display device according to claim 11, one quantum well unit (13) of the plurality of quantum well units (13, 15, 17) adjacent to the charge generation layer (at least 14) and close to the anode (12) comprises a first electron transport layer (133) serving as one of the barrier layers thereof, and one quantum well unit (15) of the plurality of quantum well units (13, 15, 17) adjacent to the charge generation layer (14) and close to the cathode (18) comprises a first hole transport layer (151) serving as one of the barrier layers thereof. (Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 13, Nakamura discloses the display device according to claim 12, wherein the charge generation layer (14) comprises:
an n-type charge generation layer (141); (Fig. 1) and
a p-type charge generation layer (142), wherein the n-type charge generation layer (141) is disposed between the first electron transport layer (142) and the p-type charge generation layer (142) and the p-type charge generation layer (142) is disposed between the n-type charge generation layer (141) and the first hole transport layer (151). (Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 18, Nakamura Fig. 1 discloses the display device according to claim 1, further comprising a second hole transport layer (131) disposed on a side of the anode (12) adjacent to the cathode (18), (Fig. 1)
wherein one quantum well unit (15) of the plurality of quantum well units (13, 15, 17) immediately adjacent to the cathode (18) comprises a second electron transport layer (153) serving as one of the barrier layers thereof. (Fig. 1)
Nakamura Fig. 1 does not explicitly disclose:
wherein one quantum well unit of the plurality of quantum well units immediately adjacent to the anode comprises a third hole transport layer serving as one of the barrier layers thereof;
However, Nakamura Fig. 3 discloses:
wherein one quantum well unit (13A) of the plurality of quantum well units immediately adjacent to the anode (12) comprises a third hole transport layer (131B) serving as one of the barrier layers thereof; ([0272], Fig. 3)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Nakamura Fig. 1 and 3 for one quantum well unit of the plurality of quantum well units immediately adjacent to the anode comprises a third hole transport layer serving as one of the barrier layers thereof in order to “ lower the drive voltage and improve the lifetime.” (Nakamura, [0044])
Regarding claim 19, Nakamura Fig. 1 discloses the display device according to claim 11. Nakamura Fig. 1 does not disclose further comprises:
a second hole transport layer and a third hole transport layer stacked on a side of the anode adjacent to the cathode; and
a second electron transport layer and a third electron transport layer stacked on a side of the cathode adjacent to the anode; and
wherein one quantum well unit of the plurality of quantum well units immediately adjacent to the anode comprises one of the second hole transport layer and the third hole transport layer away from the anode serving as one of the barrier layers thereof, and one quantum well unit of the plurality of quantum well units immediately adjacent to the cathode comprises one of the second electron transport layer and the third electron transport layer away from the cathode serving as one of the barrier layers thereof.
However, Nakamura Fig. 3 discloses:
a second hole transport layer (131A) and a third hole transport layer (131B) stacked on a side of the anode (12) adjacent to the cathode (18); (Fig. 3) and
a second electron transport layer (153) and a third electron transport layer (173) stacked on a side of the cathode (18) adjacent to the anode (12), wherein
one quantum well unit (13A) of the plurality of quantum well units (13A, 15A, 17A) immediately adjacent to the anode (12) comprises one of the second hole transport layer (131A) and the third hole transport layer (131B) away from the anode (12) serving as one of the barrier layers thereof, and one quantum well unit (17A) of the plurality of quantum well units (13A, 15A, 17A) immediately adjacent to the cathode (18) comprises one of the second electron transport layer (173)
Nakamura Fig. 3 does not explicitly show:
And the third electron transport layer away from the cathode serving as one of the barrier layers thereof.
However, Nakamura discloses:
“[0054] The electron transporting zone may be provided by a single layer or a plurality of layers.” ([0054])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use the teachings of Nakamura to arrive at the claimed invention in order to “lower the drive voltage and improve the lifetime.” (Nakamura, [0044])
Regarding claim 20, Nakamura discloses the display device according to claim 11, wherein a thickness of each of the barrier layers (131, 133/151,153) is greater than or equal to 2 nanometers, and is less than or equal to 20 nanometers. ([0254])
Claims 4-6 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US 20210242419 A1) in view of Wang et al. (CN110364635 A) and Zhou et al. (CN102683597A) as applied to claim 1 and 11 above, respectively, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20200058874 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Nakamura in view of Wang and Zhou disclose the organic light-emitting display panel according to claim 1. Nakamura in view of Wang and Zhou do not disclose wherein an energy level difference between a trilinear energy level of a host material of the barrier layers and a trilinear energy level of a host material of the light-emitting layer is greater than 0.2eV;
However, Kim discloses:
a trilinear energy level of a host material of the light-emitting layer is greater than 0.2eV; ([0069], Fig. 2)
Kim does not explicitly disclose:
an energy level difference between a singlet energy level of the host material of the barrier layers and a singlet energy level of the host material of the light-emitting layer is greater than 0.2eV.
However, Kim discloses:
“Each of the compounds represented by the Chemical Formula D may have a small difference between singlet energy and triplet energy. The triplet energy of each of the compounds represented by the Chemical Formula D may be converted to the singlet energy via RISC (reverse inter-system crossing) for light-emission. The triplet energy of each of the compounds represented by the Chemical Formula D may be delivered to the triplet energy of the adjacent host material in the host composition.” [0089])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Nakamura, Wang, Zhou and Kim to have an energy level difference between a singlet energy level of the host material of the barrier layers and a singlet energy level of the host material of the light-emitting layer is greater than 0.2eV “in order to maximize TADF (thermally activated delayed fluorescence) characteristics” so as to “ improve the light-emission efficiency of the organic electroluminescence device.” (Kim. [0090])
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses the organic light-emitting display panel according to claim 4, wherein an energy level difference between a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) energy level of the host material of the barrier layers (HTL/ETL) and a HOMO energy level of the host material of the light-emitting layer (EML) is greater than 0.2eV; ([0145], Table 1) and
an energy level difference between a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) energy level of the host material of the barrier layers (HTL/ETL) and a LUMO energy level of the host material of the light-emitting layer (EML) is greater than 0.2eV. ([0145, Table 1)
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses the organic light-emitting display panel according to claim 4, wherein a range of the trilinear energy level of the host material of the barrier layers (HTL/ETL) is 2.5eV-6.0eV, ([0070], Fig. 2) a range of the trilinear energy level of the host material of the light-emitting layer (B-EML) is 2.0eV-5.0eV; ([0070], Fig. 2)
Kim does not explicitly disclose:
a range of the singlet energy level of the host material of the barrier layers is 2.5eV-6.0eV, and a range of the singlet energy level of the host material of the light-emitting layer is 2.0eV-5.0eV.
However, Kim discloses:
“Each of the compounds represented by the Chemical Formula D may have a small difference between singlet energy and triplet energy. The triplet energy of each of the compounds represented by the Chemical Formula D may be converted to the singlet energy via RISC (reverse inter-system crossing) for light-emission. The triplet energy of each of the compounds represented by the Chemical Formula D may be delivered to the triplet energy of the adjacent host material in the host composition.” [0089])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use the teachings of Kim to have a range of the singlet energy level of the host material of the barrier layers is 2.5eV-6.0eV, and a range of the singlet energy level of the host material of the light-emitting layer is 2.0eV-5.0eV “in order to maximize TADF (thermally activated delayed fluorescence) characteristics” so as to “ improve the light-emission efficiency of the organic electroluminescence device.” (Kim. [0090])
Regarding claim 14, Nakamura in view of Wang and Zhou disclose the display device according to claim 11. Nakamura in view of Wang and Zhou do not disclose wherein an energy level difference between a trilinear energy level of a host material of the barrier layers and a trilinear energy level of a host material of the light-emitting layer is greater than 0.2eV;
However, Kim discloses:
a trilinear energy level of a host material of the light-emitting layer is greater than 0.2eV; ([0069], Fig. 2)
Kim does not explicitly disclose:
an energy level difference between a singlet energy level of the host material of the barrier layers and a singlet energy level of the host material of the light-emitting layer is greater than 0.2eV.
However, Kim discloses:
wherein an energy level difference between a trilinear energy level of a host material of the barrier layers and a trilinear energy level of a host material of the light-emitting layer is greater than 0.2eV; ([0069], Fig. 2)
Kim does not explicitly disclose:
an energy level difference between a singlet energy level of the host material of the barrier layers and a singlet energy level of the host material of the light-emitting layer is greater than 0.2eV.
However, Kim discloses:
“Each of the compounds represented by the Chemical Formula D may have a small difference between singlet energy and triplet energy. The triplet energy of each of the compounds represented by the Chemical Formula D may be converted to the singlet energy via RISC (reverse inter-system crossing) for light-emission. The triplet energy of each of the compounds represented by the Chemical Formula D may be delivered to the triplet energy of the adjacent host material in the host composition.” [0089])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Nakamura, Wang, Zhou and Kim to have an energy level difference between a singlet energy level of the host material of the barrier layers and a singlet energy level of the host material of the light-emitting layer is greater than 0.2eV “in order to maximize TADF (thermally activated delayed fluorescence) characteristics” so as to “ improve the light-emission efficiency of the organic electroluminescence device.” (Kim. [0090])
Regarding claim 15, Kim discloses the display device according to claim 14, wherein an energy level difference between a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) energy level of the host material of the barrier layers (HTL/ETL) and a HOMO energy level of the host material of the light-emitting layer (EML) is greater than 0.2eV; ([0145], Table 1) and
an energy level difference between a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) energy level of the host material of the barrier layers (HTL/ETL) and a LUMO energy level of the host material of the light-emitting layer (EML) is greater than 0.2eV. ([0145, Table 1)
Regarding claim 16, Kim discloses the display device according to claim 14, wherein a range of the trilinear energy level of the host material of the barrier layers (HTL/ETL) is 2.5eV-6.0eV, ([0070], Fig. 2) a range of the trilinear energy level of the host material of the light-emitting layer (B-EML) is 2.0eV-5.0eV; ([0070], Fig. 2)
Kim does not explicitly disclose:
a range of the singlet energy level of the host material of the barrier layers is 2.5eV-6.0eV, and a range of the singlet energy level of the host material of the light-emitting layer is 2.0eV-5.0eV.
However, Kim discloses:
“Each of the compounds represented by the Chemical Formula D may have a small difference between singlet energy and triplet energy. The triplet energy of each of the compounds represented by the Chemical Formula D may be converted to the singlet energy via RISC (reverse inter-system crossing) for light-emission. The triplet energy of each of the compounds represented by the Chemical Formula D may be delivered to the triplet energy of the adjacent host material in the host composition.” [0089])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use the teachings of Kim to have a range of the singlet energy level of the host material of the barrier layers is 2.5eV-6.0eV, and a range of the singlet energy level of the host material of the light-emitting layer is 2.0eV-5.0eV “in order to maximize TADF (thermally activated delayed fluorescence) characteristics” so as to “ improve the light-emission efficiency of the organic electroluminescence device.” (Kim. [0090])
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US 20210242419 A1) in view of Wang et al. (CN110364635 A) and Zhou et al. (CN102683597A) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, respectively and further in view of Levermore (US 20210210707 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura in view of Wang and Zhou disclose the organic light-emitting display panel according to claim 1. Nakamura in view of Wang and Zhou do not disclose wherein the plurality of quantum well units include an even number of quantum well units, and a number of the quantum well units located on a side of the charge generation layer adjacent to the anode is equal to a number of the quantum well units located on a side of the charge generation layer adjacent to the cathode.
However, Levermore discloses:
the plurality of quantum well units (580/585) include an even number (2) of quantum well units, and a number of the quantum well units located on a side of the charge generation layer (540) adjacent to the anode (510) is equal to a number of the quantum well units located on a side of the charge generation layer (540) adjacent to the cathode (575). (Fig. 8)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Nakamura, Wang, Zhou and Levermore for the plurality of quantum well units include an even number of quantum well units, and a number of the quantum well units located on a side of the charge generation layer adjacent to the anode is equal to a number of the quantum well units located on a side of the charge generation layer adjacent to the cathode as being a conventional choice in the art as no unexpected technical effect is achieved since “performance advantages are demonstrated by including one or more perovskite light emitting materials in stacked light emitting devices with multiple emissive units” (Levermore, [0004])
Regarding claim 17, Nakamura in view of Wang and Zhou disclose the display device according to claim 11. Nakamura in view of Wang and Zhou do not disclose wherein the plurality of quantum well units include an even number of quantum well units, and a number of the quantum well units located on a side of the charge generation layer adjacent to the anode is equal to a number of the quantum well units located on a side of the charge generation layer adjacent to the cathode.
However, Levermore discloses:
the plurality of quantum well units (580/585) include an even number (2) of quantum well units, and a number of the quantum well units located on a side of the charge generation layer (540) adjacent to the anode (510) is equal to a number of the quantum well units located on a side of the charge generation layer (540) adjacent to the cathode (575). (Fig. 8)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Nakamura, Wang, Zhou and Levermore for the plurality of quantum well units include an even number of quantum well units, and a number of the quantum well units located on a side of the charge generation layer adjacent to the anode is equal to a number of the quantum well units located on a side of the charge generation layer adjacent to the cathode as being a conventional choice in the art as no unexpected technical effect is achieved since “performance advantages are demonstrated by including one or more perovskite light emitting materials in stacked light emitting devices with multiple emissive units” (Levermore, [0004])
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 ASHLEY BLACKWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-1600.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at 469-295-9060. 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.
/ASHLEY NICOLE BLACKWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights