Attorney’s Docket Number: 18506-2322
Filing Date: 10/25/2023
Claimed Priority Date: 10/25/2022 (PRO 63/380812)
10/12/2023 (CN202311322604.3)
Applicants: Chen et al.
Examiner: Aneesa Baig
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the Amendment filed on 04/01/2026.
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 .
Acknowledgment
The Amendment filed on 04/01/2026, responding to the Office action mailed on 01/07/2026, has been entered. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this application are claims 1-10.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome some of the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102, as previously formulated in the same Office action. However, some of the previously presented prior art remains relevant, and new grounds for rejection are presented below, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kayano (JP 2006222195 A-PDF provided, Hereinafter Kayano) in view of Kastner-Jung (US 20240110678 A1, Hereinafter Kastner-Jung)
Regarding Claim 1, Kayano (e.g., Figures 1-5c) shows all aspects of the instant invention, including, an organic light emitting element, comprising:
a substrate (substrate P, interlayer films 222-240);
a first electrode over the substrate (pixel electrode 141);
an organic light emitting layer over the first electrode (light emitting layer 140B is made of organic material )
a fluorine-containing ion residue region on at least one surface of the organic light emitting layer (fluoride layer 155, page 8 of PDF provided, (par [0029], PG 8 line 43, Pg 10 lines 30-40, [0046])), wherein the organic light emitting layer comprises a carrier transportation layer, and the carrier transportation layer is substantially free of fluorine (the Par cited show that the fluoride layer is made by fluorinating only an adjustable surface of 140A, resulting in a portion of 140A free of fluorine, materials of 140A are listed in page 7 lines, 10-20).
While Kayano does not mention explicitly the 140A layer is a carrier transport layer, it does show that he hole injection layer 140A is a layer provided for the purpose of improving the charge transport property, hence a hole injection layer may also transport holes, or positive charge carriers.
Kastner-Jung ([0012] [0220] [0221], Figs 1-5), on the other hand and in a related field of OLEDs, teaches that a hole transport layer transports positive charge carriers to enable the light emitting layer to function.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the hole injection layer as a subset of a carrier transport layer, to enable the organic layer to transport positive charge carriers toward the emitting region.
Regarding Claim 2, Kayano shows the fluorination gas includes carbon fluoride and fluorine radicals/ions (page 5, lines 37-40, page 10 lines 40).
Regarding Claim 3, Kayano shows the fluorine layer 155 is between an organic LE layer and the electrode.
Regarding Claim 4, Kayano (Figure 5a-5c) shows a protrusion structure (150) over the substrate and partially covering the first electrode, wherein the fluorine-containing ion residue region is further located over the protrusion structure. (155 is partially over the portion of 150 overlapping the electrode as seen in Fig 5b and 5c).
Regarding Claim 5, Kayano shows the fluorine-containing ion residue region is further located between the organic light emitting layer (140B) and the protrusion structure (140B and 155 is over the portion of 150 overlapping the electrode).
Regarding Claim 9, Kayano shows a plurality of layers with the fluorine layer (155) among them.
Regarding Claim 10, Kayano shows the substrate ((substrate P is glass, interlayer films 222-240) and the interlayer dielectric films are free of fluorine.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims filed on 04/01/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Additionally, in regards to Kayano the applicant argues:
"... Specifically, Kayano is directed to the hole injection layer 140A comprises fluoride, which does not involve or suggest a carrier transportation layer being substantially free of fluorine as recited in amended claim 1.” (see, e.g., Remarks, Page. 7).
The examiner responds:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Initially, it is noted that the examiner is entitled to the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim language. Additionally, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Kayano repeatedly details in (par [0029], PG 8 line 43, Pg 10 lines 30-40, [0046]) that only the surface of the hole injection layer is fluorinated, leaving the rest of the layer away from the fluoride layer, fluorine-free. Kayano further says the depth of fluorination of the hole injection layer 140A and the concentration of fluorine introduced can be easily adjusted, to form a certain thickness of the fluorine layer, resulting in a remaining portion of 140A that is fluorine free. Under BRI of the claim 1, Kayano shows the fluorine residue layer is on a surface of the organic light emitting layer, with a portion of the organic light emitting substantially free of fluorine due to the fluorination process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANEESA RIAZ BAIG whose telephone number is (571)272-0249. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm EST.
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, Wael Fahmy can be reached on 5712721705. 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.
/ANEESA RIAZ BAIG/Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights