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 .
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 11/07/2023 and 01/15/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 08/29/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10-13, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 20200058874 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses an organic light-emitting display panel, comprising:
an anode (A); (Fig. 3)
a cathode (C), arranged opposite to the anode (A); (Fig. 3)
a plurality of quantum well units (S1, S2, S3), stacked between the anode (A) and the cathode (C), each of the quantum well units (S1, S2, S3) comprising a light-emitting layer (EML) and barrier layers (HTL/ETL) disposed on both sides of the light-emitting layer (EML); ([0119], Fig. 4) and
a charge generation layer (CGL2), disposed between two adjacent ones of the plurality of quantum well units (S1, S2, S3), 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. ([0122], Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses the organic light-emitting display panel according to claim 1, wherein one quantum well unit of the plurality of quantum well units (S1) adjacent to the charge generation layer (CGL2) and close to the anode (A) comprises a first electron transport layer (ETL) serving as one of the barrier layers thereof, (Fig. 3 and 4) and one quantum well unit (S2) of the plurality of quantum well units adjacent to the charge generation layer (CGL2) and close to the cathode (C) comprises a first hole transport layer (HTL in S2) serving as one of the barrier layers thereof. (Fig. 3 and 4)
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses the organic light-emitting display panel according to claim 2, wherein the charge generation layer (CGL2) comprises:
an n-type charge generation layer (n-CGL); ([0121], Fig. 3) and
a p-type charge generation layer (P-CGL), wherein the n-type charge generation layer (n-CGL) is disposed between the first electron transport layer (ETL) and the p-type charge generation layer (P-CGL), and the p-type charge generation layer is disposed between the n-type charge generation layer and the first hole transport layer (HTL). (Fig. 3 and 4)
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 10, Kim discloses the organic light-emitting display panel according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of each of the barrier layers (HTL/ETL) is greater than or equal to 2 nanometers, and is less than or equal to 20 nanometers. ([0129]-[0134])
Regarding claim 11, Kim discloses a display device, comprising an organic light-emitting display panel, wherein the organic light-emitting display panel comprises:
an anode (A); (Fig. 3)
a cathode (C), arranged opposite to the anode (A); (Fig. 3)
a plurality of quantum well units (S1, S2, S3), stacked between the anode (A) and the cathode (C), each of the quantum well units (S1, S2, S3) comprising a light-emitting layer (EML) and barrier layers (HTL/ETL) disposed on both sides of the light-emitting layer (EML); ([0119], Fig. 4) and
a charge generation layer (CGL2), disposed between two adjacent ones of the plurality of quantum well units (S1, S2, S3), 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. ([0122], Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 12, Kim discloses the display device according to claim 11, wherein one quantum well unit of the plurality of quantum well units (S1) adjacent to the charge generation layer (CGL2) and close to the anode (A) comprises a first electron transport layer (ETL) serving as one of the barrier layers thereof, (Fig. 3 and 4) and one quantum well unit (S2) of the plurality of quantum well units adjacent to the charge generation layer (CGL2) and close to the cathode (C) comprises a first hole transport layer (HTL in S2) serving as one of the barrier layers thereof. (Fig. 3 and 4)
Regarding claim 13, Kim discloses the display device according to claim 12, wherein the charge generation layer (CGL2) comprises:
an n-type charge generation layer (n-CGL); ([0121], Fig. 3) and
a p-type charge generation layer (P-CGL), wherein the n-type charge generation layer (n-CGL) is disposed between the first electron transport layer (ETL) and the p-type charge generation layer (P-CGL), and the p-type charge generation layer is disposed between the n-type charge generation layer and the first hole transport layer (HTL). (Fig. 3 and 4)
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 20, Kim discloses The display device according to claim 11, wherein a thickness of each of the barrier layers (HTL/ETL) is greater than or equal to 2 nanometers, and is less than or equal to 20 nanometers. ([0129]-[0134])
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 4, 6, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20200058874 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses the organic light-emitting display panel according to claim 1, 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 use the teachings of 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 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, Kim discloses The display device according to claim 11, 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 use the teachings of 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 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 Kim et al. (US 20200058874 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, respectively and further in view of Levermore (US 20210210707 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses the organic light-emitting display panel according to claim 1. Kim does 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 Kim 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, Kim discloses the display device according to claim 11. Kim does 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 Kim 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])
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20200058874 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, respectively and further in view of Nakamura et al. (US 20210242419 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses the organic light-emitting display panel according to claim 1, further comprising a second hole transport layer (HTL in S1) disposed on a side of the anode (A) adjacent to the cathode (C), (Fig. 3 and 4)
and one quantum well unit (S3) of the plurality of quantum well units immediately adjacent to the cathode (C) comprises a second electron transport layer (ETL) serving as one of the barrier layers thereof. (Fig. 2 and 3)
Kim does not 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 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 Kim and Nakamura 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 achieve a long lifetime of the device.” (Nakamura, [0004])
Regarding claim 18, Kim discloses The display device according to claim 11, the organic light-emitting display panel further comprises a second hole transport layer (HTL in S1) disposed on a side of the anode (A) adjacent to the cathode (C), (Fig. 3 and 4)
one quantum well unit (S3) of the plurality of quantum well units immediately adjacent to the cathode (C) comprises a second electron transport layer (ETL) serving as one of the barrier layers thereof. (Fig. 2 and 3)
Kim does not disclose:
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 discloses:
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 Kim and Nakamura 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 achieve a long lifetime of the device.” (Nakamura, [0004])
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20200058874 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, respectively and further in view of Levermore (US 20210210707 A1) and Nakamura et al. (US 20210242419 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses the organic light-emitting display panel according to claim 1. Kim 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, Levermore discloses:
a second hole transport layer (125) and a third hole transport layer (130) stacked on a side of the anode (115) adjacent to the cathode (155); ([0079], Fig. 1) and
a second electron transport layer (145) and a third electron transport layer (140) stacked on a side of the cathode (155) adjacent to the anode (115), ([0079], Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Kim and Levermore to have 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 “as would be understood by one skilled in the art, the term “blocking layer” means that the layer provides a barrier that significantly inhibits transport of charge carriers and/or excitons, without suggesting that the layer completely blocks the charge carriers and/or excitons. The presence of such a blocking layer in a device may result in substantially higher efficiencies as compared to a similar device lacking a blocking layer. A blocking layer may also be used to confine emission to a desired region of a device. Substantial similarity between blocking layer properties required for perovskite light emitting material, organic light emitting material and quantum dot light emitting material facilitates the combination of these light emitting materials in a single device, such as a stacked light emitting device.” (Levermore, [0079])
Levermore Fig.1 does not show:
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, Levermore Fig. 8 shows:
and one quantum well unit (585) of the plurality of quantum well units immediately adjacent to the cathode comprises one of the second electron transport layer (565) and the third electron transport layer (560) away from the cathode serving as one of the barrier layers thereof.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Kim and Levermore to have 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 “as would be understood by one skilled in the art, the term “blocking layer” means that the layer provides a barrier that significantly inhibits transport of charge carriers and/or excitons, without suggesting that the layer completely blocks the charge carriers and/or excitons. The presence of such a blocking layer in a device may result in substantially higher efficiencies as compared to a similar device lacking a blocking layer. A blocking layer may also be used to confine emission to a desired region of a device. Substantial similarity between blocking layer properties required for perovskite light emitting material, organic light emitting material and quantum dot light emitting material facilitates the combination of these light emitting materials in a single device, such as a stacked light emitting device.” (Levermore, [0079])
Kim in view of Nakamura do not disclose:
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,
However, Nakamura discloses:
wherein one quantum well unit (13A) of the plurality of quantum well units 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, ([0272], Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Kim, Levermore and Nakamura for 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 in order to “to achieve a long lifetime of the device.” (Nakamura, [0004])
Regarding claim 19, Kim discloses the display device according to claim 11 Kim does not disclose: wherein the organic light-emitting display panel 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, Levermore discloses:
a second hole transport layer (125) and a third hole transport layer (130) stacked on a side of the anode (115) adjacent to the cathode (155); ([0079], Fig. 1) and
a second electron transport layer (145) and a third electron transport layer (140) stacked on a side of the cathode (155) adjacent to the anode (115), ([0079], Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Kim and Levermore to have 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 “as would be understood by one skilled in the art, the term “blocking layer” means that the layer provides a barrier that significantly inhibits transport of charge carriers and/or excitons, without suggesting that the layer completely blocks the charge carriers and/or excitons. The presence of such a blocking layer in a device may result in substantially higher efficiencies as compared to a similar device lacking a blocking layer. A blocking layer may also be used to confine emission to a desired region of a device. Substantial similarity between blocking layer properties required for perovskite light emitting material, organic light emitting material and quantum dot light emitting material facilitates the combination of these light emitting materials in a single device, such as a stacked light emitting device.” (Levermore, [0079])
Levermore Fig.1 does not show:
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, Levermore Fig. 8 shows:
and one quantum well unit (585) of the plurality of quantum well units immediately adjacent to the cathode comprises one of the second electron transport layer (565) and the third electron transport layer (560) away from the cathode serving as one of the barrier layers thereof.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Kim and Levermore to have 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 “as would be understood by one skilled in the art, the term “blocking layer” means that the layer provides a barrier that significantly inhibits transport of charge carriers and/or excitons, without suggesting that the layer completely blocks the charge carriers and/or excitons. The presence of such a blocking layer in a device may result in substantially higher efficiencies as compared to a similar device lacking a blocking layer. A blocking layer may also be used to confine emission to a desired region of a device. Substantial similarity between blocking layer properties required for perovskite light emitting material, organic light emitting material and quantum dot light emitting material facilitates the combination of these light emitting materials in a single device, such as a stacked light emitting device.” (Levermore, [0079])
Kim in view of Nakamura do not disclose:
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,
However, Nakamura discloses:
wherein one quantum well unit (13A) of the plurality of quantum well units 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, ([0272], Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Kim, Levermore and Nakamura for 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 in order to “to achieve a long lifetime of the device.” (Nakamura, [0004])
Conclusion
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