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 filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
591
1251
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown above, Nam discloses that the fourth buffer layer (interface layer between 230 and 220 – as labeled by examiner above) is disposed between the first p-type charge-generating layer 230 and the second buffer layer 220.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, recites “the fourth buffer layer” lacks antecedent basis. As such the claim are unclear indefinite.
Claim 11-13 and 15-20 recites “the fourth buffer layer” is unclear and indefinite “the fourth buffer layer” recited is referring to that recited in claim 1 or different “the fourth buffer layer”. As such the claims are unclear and indefinite.
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 1-12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAM 20160118613.
PNG
media_image2.png
507
373
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, fig. 1 of Nam discloses a display panel, comprising:
a substrate 10;
a first electrode layer 20 disposed on a side of the substrate;
a first light-emitting layer 130 disposed on a side of the first electrode layer away from the substrate;
a first buffer layer 150 disposed on a side of the first light-emitting layer away from the substrate;
a first charge-generating layer 210/230 disposed on a side of the first buffer layer away from the substrate, wherein the first charge-generating layer comprises a first n-type charge-generating layer 210 disposed on a side of the first buffer layer away from the substrate and a first p-type charge-generating layer 230 disposed on a side of the first n-type charge-generating layer away from the substrate;
a second buffer layer 220 disposed between the first n-type charge-generating layer and the first p-type charge-generating layer;
a second light-emitting layer 330 disposed on a side of the first charge-generating layer away from the substrate; and
a second electrode layer 30 disposed on a side of the second light-emitting layer away from the substrate;
a third buffer layer 320 disposed between the first p-type charge-generating layer 230 and the second light-emitting layer 330, and
PNG
media_image1.png
591
1251
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the fourth buffer layer (interface layer between 230 and 220 – as labeled by examiner above) is disposed between the first p-type charge-generating layer 230 and the second buffer layer 220; and
wherein an electron mobility of the first buffer layer 140 is less than an electron mobility of the first n-type charge-generating layer 210, and an electron mobility of the second buffer layer 220 is less than the electron mobility of the first n-type charge-generating layer (this is necessary the case as the n-type charge generation layer 210 may have a structure in which an n-type dopant is doped into an electron transport material and par [0046] Also, the first electron injection layer 150 may be formed of a material in which an electron transport material (which is that of 140) and an organo metal salt are mixed and [0052] The interlayer organic layer 220 does not include a dopant. The interlayer organic layer 220 may include the host material of the first electron transport layer 140 or the host material of the first hole transport layer 120. The interlayer organic layer 220 may include an organic material having an insulation property and therefore 210 which is n-type dopant is doped into an electron transport material has higher mobility that non-doped 140 and 220 does not include a dopant. The interlayer organic layer 220 may include the host material of the first electron transport layer 140 and include an organic material having an insulation property);
Nam does not disclose that a difference between a highest occupied molecular orbital energy level of the first buffer layer and a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital energy level of the first n-type charge-generating layer is greater than 2 eV and less than 4 eV; and a difference between a highest occupied molecular orbital energy level of the second buffer layer and the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital energy level of the first n-type charge-generating layer is greater than 2 eV and less than 4 eV.
However, although Nam is silent about the claimed range difference of greater than 2 eV and less than 4 eV, it should be noted that a range difference inherently exist in the Nam structure.
Therefore, the prior art of Nam provides foundation for experimental optimization in order to make it easy for electrons to transfer between layers.
Therefore, while the structure of Nam do not quantitatively state a range difference of greater than 2 eV and less than 4 eV, the courts have held that when the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is a size/proportion, then a prima facie case of obviousness exists [See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a device of Nam wherein a difference between a highest occupied molecular orbital energy level of the first buffer layer and a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital energy level of the first n-type charge-generating layer is greater than 2 eV and less than 4 eV; and a difference between a highest occupied molecular orbital energy level of the second buffer layer and the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital energy level of the first n-type charge-generating layer is greater than 2 eV and less than 4 eV in order to make it easy for electrons to transfer between layers.
Regarding claim 2, fig. 1 of Nam discloses wherein the display panel further comprises a first electron transport layer 140 disposed between the first light-emitting layer and the first buffer layer, wherein a side of the first buffer layer close to the first n-type charge-generating layer is in contact with the first n-type charge-generating layer, and a side of the first buffer layer away from the first n-type charge-generating layer is in contact with the first electron transport layer; and wherein a side of the second buffer layer close to the first n-type charge-generating layer is in contact with the first n-type charge-generating layer, and a side of the second buffer layer away from the first n-type charge-generating layer is in contact with the first p-type charge-generating layer.
Regarding clam 3, Nam does not disclose wherein a difference between the highest occupied molecular orbital energy level of the first buffer layer and a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital energy level of the first electron transport layer is greater than 2 eV and less than 4 eV.
However, although Nam is silent about the claimed range difference of greater than 2 eV and less than 4 eV, it should be noted that a range difference inherently exist in the Nam structure.
Therefore, the prior art of Nam provides foundation for experimental optimization in order to make it easy for electrons to transfer between layers.
Therefore, while the structure of Nam do not quantitatively state a range difference of greater than 2 eV and less than 4 eV, the courts have held that when the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is a size/proportion, then a prima facie case of obviousness exists [See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a device of Nam wherein a difference between the highest occupied molecular orbital energy level of the first buffer layer and a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital energy level of the first electron transport layer is greater than 2 eV and less than 4 in order to make it easy for electrons to transfer between layers.
Regarding claim 4, Nam does not disclose wherein the electron mobility of the first n-type charge-generating layer is greater than or equal to 10.sup.−4 cm.sup.2/Vs, the electron mobility of the first buffer layer is less than 10.sup.−4 cm.sup.2/Vs, and the electron mobility of the second buffer layer is less than 10.sup.−4 cm.sup.2/Vs.
However, it would have obvious to form a device of Nam comprising wherein the electron mobility of the first n-type charge-generating layer is greater than or equal to 10.sup.−4 cm.sup.2/Vs, the electron mobility of the first buffer layer is less than 10.sup.−4 cm.sup.2/Vs, and the electron mobility of the second buffer layer is less than 10.sup.−4 cm.sup.2/V in order to be able generate electron faster than being able to transport in order to have property device function.
Regarding claim 5, Nam does not disclose wherein an electron mobility of the first electron transport layer is greater than 10.sup.−5 cm.sup.2/Vs and less than 10.sup.−4 cm.sup.2/Vs, the electron mobility of the first buffer layer is greater than 10.sup.−5 cm.sup.2/Vs, and the electron mobility of the second buffer layer is greater than 10.sup.−5 cm.sup.2/Vs.
However, it would have obvious to form a device of Nam comprising wherein an electron mobility of the first electron transport layer is greater than 10.sup.−5 cm.sup.2/Vs and less than 10.sup.−4 cm.sup.2/Vs, the electron mobility of the first buffer layer is greater than 10.sup.−5 cm.sup.2/Vs, and the electron mobility of the second buffer layer is greater than 10.sup.−5 cm.sup.2/Vs in order to be able injection electron faster than being able to transport in order to have property device function and for the electron to be block by the second buffer layer to prevent leakage.
Regarding claim 6, it would have been obvious to form a device of Nam comprising wherein an electron work function of the first buffer layer is between an electron work function of the first n-type charge-generating layer and an electron work function of the first p-type charge-generating layer, and an electron work function of the second buffer layer is between the electron work function of the first n-type charge-generating layer and the electron work function of the first p-type charge-generating layer in order to make it easy for electrons to transfer between layers.
Regarding claim 7, it would have been obvious to form a device comprising wherein the electron work function of the first buffer layer is greater than 5.5 eV and less than 7.5 eV; and wherein the electron work function of the second buffer layer is greater than 5.5 eV and less than 7.5 eV in order to make it easy for electrons to transfer between layers base material desired and applicant’s specification.
Regarding claim 8, Nam discloses (see examiner explanation in rejection of claim 1) wherein the first n-type charge-generating layer comprises a first electron transport material and a first charge doped material, the first buffer layer is composed of the first electron transport material, and the second buffer layer is composed of the first electron transport material.
Regarding claim 9, Nam does not disclose wherein a difference between a thickness of the first buffer layer and a thickness of the second buffer layer is greater than or equal to 0 angstrom and less than or equal to 50 angstroms.
However, although Nam is silent about the claimed range, it should be noted that a range difference inherently exist in the Nam structure.
Therefore, the prior art of Nam provides foundation for experimental optimization in order to make it easy for electrons to transfer between layers.
Therefore, while the structure of Nam do not quantitatively state the claimed range, the courts have held that when the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is a size/proportion, then a prima facie case of obviousness exists [See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a device of Nam wherein a difference between a thickness of the first buffer layer and a thickness of the second buffer layer is greater than or equal to 0 angstrom and less than or equal to 50 angstroms in order to make it easy for electrons to transfer between layers.
Regarding claim 10, Nam does not discloses wherein a mass ratio of the first electron transport material to the first charge doped material in the first n-type charge-generating layer ranges from 99:1 to 80:20.
However, although Nam is silent about the claimed range, it should be noted that a range difference inherently exist in the Nam structure.
Therefore, the prior art of Nam provides foundation for experimental optimization in order to make it easy for electrons to transfer between layers.
Therefore, while the structure of Nam do not quantitatively state the claimed range, the courts have held that when the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is a size/proportion, then a prima facie case of obviousness exists [See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a device of Nam wherein a mass ratio of the first electron transport material to the first charge doped material in the first n-type charge-generating layer ranges from 99:1 to 80:20 in order to make it easy for electrons to transfer between layers.
Regarding claim 11, fig. 1 of Nam disclose wherein a hole mobility of the third buffer layer 320 is less than a hole mobility of the first p-type charge-generating layer 320, and a hole mobility of the fourth buffer layer 310 is less than the hole mobility of the first p-type charge-generating layer (this is necessary the case as the first p-type charge-generating layer is doped).
Regarding claim 12, Nam does not disclose of wherein a difference between a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital energy level of the third buffer layer and a highest occupied molecular orbital energy level of the first p-type charge-generating layer is greater than 2 eV and less than 4 eV; and wherein a difference between a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital energy level of the fourth buffer layer and the highest occupied molecular orbital energy level of the first p-type charge-generating layer is greater than 2 eV and less than 4 eV.
However, although Nam is silent about the claimed range difference of greater than 2 eV and less than 4 eV, it should be noted that a range difference inherently exist in the Nam structure.
Therefore, the prior art of Nam provides foundation for experimental optimization in order to make it easy for electrons to transfer between layers.
Therefore, while the structure of Nam do not quantitatively state a range difference of greater than 2 eV and less than 4 eV, the courts have held that when the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is a size/proportion, then a prima facie case of obviousness exists [See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a device of Nam wherein a difference between a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital energy level of the third buffer layer and a highest occupied molecular orbital energy level of the first p-type charge-generating layer is greater than 2 eV and less than 4 eV; and wherein a difference between a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital energy level of the fourth buffer layer and the highest occupied molecular orbital energy level of the first p-type charge-generating layer is greater than 2 eV and less than 4 eV in order to make it easy for holes to transfer between layers.
Regarding claims 17-18, Nam does not disclose of wherein an electron work function of the third buffer layer is between an electron work function of the first n-type charge-generating layer and an electron work function of the first p-type charge-generating layer, and an electron work function of the fourth buffer layer is between the electron work function of the first n-type charge-generating layer and the electron work function of the first p-type charge-generating layer; wherein the electron work function of the third buffer layer is greater than 5.5 eV and less than 7.5 eV; and wherein the electron work function of the fourth buffer layer is greater than 5.5 eV and less than 7.5 eV.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a device of Nam wherein an electron work function of the third buffer layer is between an electron work function of the first n-type charge-generating layer and an electron work function of the first p-type charge-generating layer, and an electron work function of the fourth buffer layer is between the electron work function of the first n-type charge-generating layer and the electron work function of the first p-type charge-generating layer; wherein the electron work function of the third buffer layer is greater than 5.5 eV and less than 7.5 eV; and wherein the electron work function of the fourth buffer layer is greater than 5.5 eV and less than 7.5 eV in order to make it easy for holes to transfer between layers.
Regarding claim 19, Nam discloses wherein the first p-type charge-generating layer comprises a first hole transport material and a second charge doped material, the third buffer layer is composed of the first hole transport material, and the fourth buffer layer is composed of the first hole transport material (see par [0050] and [0054]).
Regarding claim 20, Nam does not disclose of wherein a difference between a thickness of the third buffer layer and a thickness of the fourth buffer layer is greater than or equal to 0 angstrom and less than or equal to 50 angstroms.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a device of Nam wherein a difference between a thickness of the third buffer layer and a thickness of the fourth buffer layer is greater than or equal to 0 angstrom and less than or equal to 50 angstroms in order to make it easy for holes to transfer between layers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-16 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 and overcoming the 112 2nd rejection.
Conclusion
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 VONGSAVANH SENGDARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5770. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM 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, PURVIS A. Sue can be reached on (571)272-1236. 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.
/VONGSAVANH SENGDARA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights