Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 recited, “…wherein the thickness of the first electron transporting layer is a range of approximately 20 to 30nm, The thickness of the second electron transporting layer is a range of approximately 15 to 25nm…”. It should be corrected to be “…wherein the thickness of the first electron transporting layer is a range of approximately 20 to 30nm, the thickness of the second electron transporting layer is a range of approximately 15 to 25nm…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15, 17-18 and 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, “…a substrate including red, green and blue pixel regions; and an organic light emitting diode including an anode, a cathode over the anode and an organic emitting layer between the anode and the cathode, and corresponding to the red, green and blue pixel regions…”. This is unclear because the claim uses the singular “an organic light emitting diode” while referring to three pixel regions. As, written, it is not clear whether: one OLED spans all three pixel regions, or each of the red, green, and blue pixel regions has its own corresponding OLED. For the purpose of examination, this limitation of claim 1 will be interpreted as “…each of the red pixel region, the green pixel region and the blue pixel region having a corresponding organic light emitting diode…”.
Claims 2-15 inherit the limitations of claim 1. Hence, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for their dependency on claim 1.
Further, claims 1-6, 9-10, 12-13,17-18 and 20 recite the term “approximately”, which is a term of degree that render the scope of the claims unclear because the claims do not provide an objective standard for determining how close a value must be to fall within the recited limitation, and the specification does not clearly set forth this degree as well.
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, 13 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama (US 20120248467 A1) in view of Ahn (KR 20180078641 A).
Re: Independent claim 1, Yokoyama discloses an organic light emitting device, comprising:
a substrate including red, green and blue pixel regions (Yokoyama, in Figs. 3 and 5A-5C and ¶ [0038], teaches substrate 11 with corresponding RGB device regions 10R, 10G, 10B); and
an organic light emitting diode including an anode (Fig. 3, ¶ [0038], first electrode 14 is anode), a cathode over the anode (Fig. 3, ¶ [0038], second electrode 17 is cathode) and an organic emitting layer between the anode and the cathode (Figs. 5A-5C, ¶ [0055], organic light emitting layer 16C layered between anode 14 and cathode 17), and corresponding to the red, green and blue pixel regions (Figs. 5A-5C, anode 14, cathode 17 and organic emitting layer 16C are in red, green and blue pixel regions 10R, 10G and 10B),
wherein the organic emitting layer includes a first emitting part including a red emitting material layer (Yokoyama, in Figs 5A-5C and ¶ [0055], teaches 16C includes red emitting material layer 16CR), a second emitting part including a green emitting material layer (Yokoyama, in Figs 5A-5C and ¶ [0055], teaches 16C includes green emitting material layer 16CG) and positioned between the first emitting part and the cathode (Yokoyama, in Figs 5A-5C and ¶ [0055], teaches16CG is positioned between 16CR and cathode 17), and a third emitting part including a blue emitting material layer (Yokoyama, in Figs 5A-5C and ¶ [0055], 16C includes green emitting material layer 16CB) and positioned between the second emitting part and the cathode (Yokoyama, in Figs 5A-5C and ¶ [0055], 16CB is positioned between 16CG and cathode 17).
Yokoyama is silent regarding wherein the anode in the blue pixel region has a first thickness, and the anode in the green pixel region has a second thickness being approximately 2/5 to 2/3 of the first thickness.
However, Ahn teaches wherein the anode in the blue pixel region has a first thickness, and the anode in the green pixel region has a second thickness being approximately 2/5 to 2/3 of the first thickness (Ahn, in abstract, teaches an organic light-emitting device having first, second and third pixels, each including an anode, an organic layer provided on the anode, and a cathode provided on the organic layer and the thickness of the anode provided on the first pixel, the thickness of the anode provided on the second pixel, and the thickness of the anode provided on the third pixel are different from each other. In particular, Ahn teaches thickness of anode in the blue pixel has a thickness T3 that ranges from 700 to 1000 angstroms and the thickness of anode in the green pixel has a thickness of T1 that ranges from 50 to 400 angstroms. These disclosed ranges include selection that overlap the lower portion of the claimed range, such as 400/1000 =2/5 and 400/700= 0.57, both of which fall within the claimed approximate interval (2/5 to 2/3, i.e., 0.4 to 0.66)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the OLED of Yokoyama by selecting different anode thicknesses for the blue and green pixel regions as taught by Ahn in order to improve the color purity (Ahn, Table 1/Example 1).
Re: Claim 13, Yokoyama and Ahn disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Ahn further discloses,
wherein the anode in the red pixel region has a third thickness approximately equal to the first thickness or the second thickness (Ahn teaches thickness of anode in the blue pixel has a thickness T3 that ranges from 700 to 1000 angstroms and the thickness of anode in the green pixel has a thickness of T1 that ranges from 50 to 400 angstroms. Ahn further teaches thickness of anode in the red pixel region has a thickness of T2 that ranges from 450 to 800. These disclosed red and blue thickness overlap in the interval of 700 to 800, which is a direct teaching of values where the anode in the red pixel region has a thickness approximately equal to the blue pixel anode thickness).
Re: Independent claim 16, Yokoyama discloses an organic light emitting device, comprising:
a substrate including a red pixel region, a green pixel region and a blue pixel region (Yokoyama, in Figs. 3 and 5A-5C and ¶ [0038], teaches substrate 11 with corresponding RGB device regions 10R, 10G, 10B); and
an organic light emitting diode including an anode (Yokoyama, Fig. 3, ¶ [0038], first electrode 14 is anode), a cathode (Yokoyama, Fig. 3, ¶ [0038], second electrode 17 is cathode) and an organic emitting layer between the anode and the cathode (Yokoyama, Figs. 5A-5C, ¶ [0055], organic light emitting layer 16C layered between anode 14 and cathode 17), and each of the red pixel region, the green pixel region and the blue pixel region having a corresponding organic light emitting diode (Yokoyama, in Figs. 5A-5C, teaches that electrode 14, organic layer 16 and second electrode 17 are provided commonly over the organic EL devices 10R, 10G and 10B, thereby forming corresponding organic light-emitting diodes for red, green and blue regions),
wherein the organic emitting layer includes a first emitting part including a red emitting material layer (Yokoyama, in Figs 5A-5C and ¶ [0055], teaches 16C includes red emitting material layer 16CR), a second emitting part including a green emitting material layer (Yokoyama, in Figs 5A-5C and ¶ [0055], teaches 16C includes green emitting material layer 16CG) and positioned between the first emitting part and the cathode (Yokoyama, in Figs 5A-5C and ¶ [0055], teaches16CG is positioned between 16CR and cathode 17), and a third emitting part including a blue emitting material layer (Yokoyama, in Figs 5A-5C and ¶ [0055], 16C includes green emitting material layer 16CB) and positioned between the second emitting part and the cathode (Yokoyama, in Figs 5A-5C and ¶ [0055], 16CB is positioned between 16CG and cathode 17).
Yokoyama is silent regarding wherein a first thickness of the anode in the blue pixel region is greater than a second thickness of the anode in the green pixel region, and is greater than or equal to a third thickness of the anode in the red pixel region.
However, Ahn teaches wherein a first thickness of the anode in the blue pixel region is greater than a second thickness of the anode in the green pixel region (Ahn, in Fig. 4A and its description, teaches the first pixel is a green pixel, the second pixel is a red pixel, and the third pixel is a blue pixel, and further teaches that the thickness of the anode provided in the blue pixel (T3) is thicker than the anode provided in the green pixel (T1), and is greater than or equal to a third thickness of the anode in the red pixel region (Ahn, in Fig. 4A and its description, teaches thickness of anode in blue pixel (T3) is greater than third thickness of anode in the red pixel region (T2)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the OLED of Yokoyama by selecting greater anode thicknesses for the blue than that of green pixel regions and red pixel regions as taught by Ahn in order to improve the color purity (Ahn, Table 1/Example 1).
Re: Claim 17, Yokoyama and Ahn disclose all the limitations of claim 16 on which this claim depends.
Ahn further discloses,
wherein the second thickness of the anode in the green pixel region is approximately 2/5 to 2/3 of the first thickness of the anode in the blue pixel region (Ahn, in abstract, teaches an organic light-emitting device having first, second and third pixels, each including an anode, an organic layer provided on the anode, and a cathode provided on the organic layer and the thickness of the anode provided on the first pixel, the thickness of the anode provided on the second pixel, and the thickness of the anode provided on the third pixel are different from each other. In particular, Ahn teaches thickness of anode in the blue pixel has a thickness T3 that ranges from 700 to 1000 angstroms and the thickness of anode in the green pixel has a thickness of T1 that ranges from 50 to 400 angstroms. These disclosed ranges include selection that overlap the lower portion of the claimed range, such as 400/1000 =2/5 and 400/700= 0.57, both of which fall within the claimed approximate interval (2/5 to 2/3, i.e., 0.4 to 0.66)).
Re: Claim 18, Yokoyama and Ahn disclose all the limitations of claim 16 on which this claim depends.
Yokoyama further discloses,
wherein a first distance from the cathode to the anode of the organic light emitting diode is approximately equal in each of the red pixel region, the green pixel region and the blue pixel region (Yokoyama teaches, in ¶ [0048], that the structure of the organic layer 16 is identical without relation to each light emitting color of the organic EL devices 10R, 10G, and 10B. Thus, the interelectrode distance between the cathode and the top surface of the anode is approximately same in the red, green and blue pixel regions).
Re: Independent claim 19, Yokoyama discloses an organic light emitting device, comprising:
a substrate including a red pixel region, a green pixel region and a blue pixel region (Yokoyama, in Figs. 3 and 5A-5C and ¶ [0038], teaches substrate 11 with corresponding RGB device regions 10R, 10G, 10B); and
an organic light emitting diode including an anode (Yokoyama, Fig. 3, ¶ [0038], first electrode 14 is anode), a cathode (Yokoyama, Fig. 3, ¶ [0038], second electrode 17 is cathode) and an organic emitting layer between the anode and the cathode (Yokoyama, Figs. 5A-5C, ¶ [0055], organic light emitting layer 16C layered between anode 14 and cathode 17), and each of the red pixel region, the green pixel region and the blue pixel region having a corresponding organic light emitting diode (Yokoyama, Figs. 5A-5C, ¶ [0055], organic light emitting layer 16C layered between anode 14 and cathode 17),
wherein the organic emitting layer includes a first emitting part including a red emitting material layer (Yokoyama, in Figs 5A-5C and ¶ [0055], teaches 16C includes red emitting material layer 16CR), a second emitting part including a green emitting material layer (Yokoyama, in Figs 5A-5C and ¶ [0055], teaches 16C includes green emitting material layer 16CG) and positioned between the first emitting part and the cathode (Yokoyama, in Figs 5A-5C and ¶ [0055], teaches16CG is positioned between 16CR and cathode 17), and a third emitting part including a blue emitting material layer (Yokoyama, in Figs 5A-5C and ¶ [0055], 16C includes green emitting material layer 16CB) and positioned between the second emitting part and the cathode (Yokoyama, in Figs 5A-5C and ¶ [0055], 16CB is positioned between 16CG and cathode 17).
Yokoyama is silent regarding wherein a first travel distance of a blue light from the blue emitting material layer to a distal surface of the anode in the blue pixel region is greater than a second travel distance of a blue light from the blue emitting material layer to a distal surface of the anode in the green pixel region.
However, Ahn teaches
wherein a first travel distance of a blue light from the blue emitting material layer to a distal surface of the anode in the blue pixel region is greater than a second travel distance of a blue light from the blue emitting material layer to a distal surface of the anode in the green pixel region (Ahn teaches, in Fig. 4A, a structure in which 1st EML is a blue emission layer, the thickness of the individual layers in the 1st stack, CGL, and 2nd stack are the same for each pixel, and only the anode thickness differs by pixel, with blue-pixel anode thickness T3 greater than green-pixel anode thickness T1. Therefore, the travel distance from the blue emitting layer to the distal surface of the anode in the blue pixel is greater than the corresponding travel distance in the green pixel).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify OLED of Yokoyama so that the blue pixel anode thickness is greater than the green pixel anode thickness while the organic-stack thickness remain the same, thereby making the travel distance of blue light from the blue emitting material layer to the distal surface of the anode in the blue pixel region greater than the corresponding travel distance in the green pixel region as taught by Ahn, in order to improve the productivity and ease the manufacturing process and also improve color characteristics.
Claims 3-4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama (US 20120248467 A1) in view of Ahn (KR 20180078641 A) and further in view of Kim (US 20110073885 A1).
Re: Claim 3, Yokoyama and Ahn disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Yokoyama and Ahn are silent regarding
wherein the first thickness is in a range of approximately 500 to 600A.
However, Kim teaches wherein the first thickness is in a range of approximately 500 to 600A (Kim teaches, in Fig. 3 and ¶ [0040], the first electrode 147c (functions as an anode) of the third pixel region P3 (blue pixel region) has a thickness t1 of about 550A to about 650A, which is within the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the blue pixel anode thickness to fall within claimed range of 500-500A as taught by Kim in the OLED of Yokoyama in view of Ahn in order to improve color reproduction and light emission efficiency properties of a blue organic light emitting material (Kim, ¶ [0040]).
Re: Claim 4, Yokoyama, Ahn and Kim disclose all the limitations of claim 3 on which this claim depends.
Ahn further teaches
wherein the second thickness is in a range of approximately 200 to 400A (Ahn, in Fig. 4A and its description, teaches the thickness T1 of the anode in the green pixel region may be in the range of 50 to 400A, which overlaps within claimed ranged).
Re: Claim 20, Yokoyama and Ahn disclose all the limitations of claim 19 on which this claim depends.
Yokoyama and Ahn are silent regarding
wherein a thickness of the anode in the blue region is in a range of approximately 500 to 600A.
However, Kim teaches wherein a thickness of the anode in the blue region is in a range of approximately 500 to 600A (Kim teaches, in Fig. 3 and ¶ [0040], the first electrode 147c (functions as an anode) of the third pixel region P3 (blue pixel region) has a thickness t1 of about 550A to about 650A, which is within the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the blue pixel anode thickness to fall within claimed range of 500-500A as taught by Kim in the OLED of Yokoyama in view of Ahn in order to improve color reproduction and light emission efficiency properties of a blue organic light emitting material (Kim, ¶ [0040]).
Claims 2, 5-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama (US 20120248467 A1) in view of Ahn (KR 20180078641 A) and further in view of Hamer (US 20210159462 A1).
Re: Claim 2, Yokoyama and Ahn disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Yokoyama and Ahn are silent regarding
wherein the first thickness is approximately 1/4 of a blue wavelength in the anode wherein the blue wavelength in the anode means XB/n, wherein XB is a wavelength of the blue light, n is a refractive index of the anode.
However, Hamer teaches wherein the first thickness is approximately 1/4 of a blue wavelength in the anode wherein the blue wavelength in the anode means XB/n, wherein XB is a wavelength of the blue light, n is a refractive index of the anode (Hamer teaches, in ¶¶ [0044] – [0046], that microcavity OLED efficiency is optimized when emission occurs at an odd multiple of quarter wavelength in the device medium, with optical distance determined by physical distance and refractive index. Hamer gives a representative blue wavelength for the OLED). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the blue-pixel anode thickness of Yokoyama’s device in view of Ahn so that it is approximately λB/4n, because Ahn already teaches that blue-pixel anode thickness is used for optical tuning. Selecting the first thickness to satisfy that relation would have been a routine optimization for improving blue emission, luminance and color purity.
Re: Claim 5, Yokoyama and Ahn disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Yokoyama and Ahn are silent regarding
wherein a distance between a lower surface of the green emitting material layer and a lower surface of the cathode is in a range of approximately 180 to 230nm.
However, Hamer teaches wherein a distance between a lower surface of the green emitting material layer and a lower surface of the cathode is in a range of approximately 180 to 230nm (Hamer, in Example A1 ¶ [0116], teaches thickness of each layer in OLED stack: layer 9 (Green Light emitting layer (LEL)) = 200A, layer 10 (ETL)=100A, layer 11 (CGL2)=370A, layer 12 (HTM) = 930A, layer 13 (blue LEL1) = 200, layer 14 (ETL) = 300A, layer 15 (EIL) = 100A, and layer 16 is cathode). Accordingly, the distance from the lower surface of green LEL layer 9 to the lower surface of cathode layer 16 is 200+100+370+930+200+300+100 = 2200A= 200nm, which falls squarely within the claimed approximately 180 to 230nm range.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the distance between green light emitting layer 16CG and cathode 17 of Yokoyama to be within approximately 180 to 230nm as taught by Hamer in order to improve color purity and emission efficiency (Hamer, ¶ [0044]).
Re: Claim 6, Yokoyama, Ahn and Hamer disclose all the limitations of claim 5 on which this claim depends.
Hamer further teaches
wherein a distance between a lower surface of the blue emitting material layer and a lower surface of the cathode is in a range of approximately 45 to 65nm (Hamer, in Example A1 ¶ [0116], teaches thickness of each layer in OLED stack: layer 13 (blue LEL1) = 200, layer 14 (ETL) = 300A, layer 15 (EIL) = 100A, and layer 16 is cathode). Accordingly, the distance from the lower surface of blue LEL layer 13 to the lower surface of cathode layer 16 is 200+300+100 = 600A= 60nm, which falls squarely within the claimed approximately 45 to 65nm range).
Regarding the limitation that “a distance between a lower surface of the red emitting material layer and a lower surface of the cathode is in a range of approximately 415 to 445nm”, Hamer does not recite that exact range verbatim for a red-emitter lower-surface-to-cathode distance, but it provides both the nearest disclosed embodiment and the governing design rule that make the claimed range obvious. In the closest disclosed embodiment, Example C4 in ¶ [0144] which is modified from Example A1, the red emitter is layer 5 (red LEL) = 200, layer 6 (ETL)= 100A, layer 7 (CGL)= 370, layer 8 (HTL)=970, layer 8A= 200A, layer 8B= 200A, layer 8C= 370A, layer 8D= 210, layer 9 (Green LEL) = 200A, layer 10 (ETL)=100A, layer 11 (CGL2)=370A, layer 12 (HTM) = 810A, layer 13 (blue LEL1) = 200, layer 14 (ETL) = 200A, layer 15 (EIL) = 100A, and layer 16 is cathode, for a total red-emitter lower-surface-to-cathode distance of 4600A=460nm (approximately 445nm as claimed). While this is slightly above the exact upper endpoint of 445nm, it is closest disclosed example in the family and thus shows that Hamer already teaches positioning the lower red emitter at a substantially greater distance from the cathode than the upper blue emitter in the same kind of multi-EML microcavity stack. Hamer further teaches the microcavity design principle used to place emitters at wavelength-specific positions in the OLED stack. In particular it teaches, in ¶ [0044] – [0047], that emitters are positioned at odd multiples of a quarter wavelength in the device medium, and it gives red center wavelength of about 620nm together with refractive-index values in the red region. Accordingly, Hamer teaches that different color emitters are intentionally placed at different cavity positions because their wavelengths differ, with the longer wavelength red emitter being placed father from the cathode than the green and blue emitter. In view of these teachings, further adjusting the red-emitter position from the disclosed near value into the claimed approximate range would have been no more than routine optimization for red-wavelength resonance, color purity, and luminance efficiency.
Re: Claim 7, Yokoyama, Ahn and Hamer disclose all the limitations of claim 5 on which this claim depends.
Hamer further teaches wherein the first emitting part further includes a first hole transporting layer under the red emitting material layer (Hamer, in ¶ [0143], Example C3, (layer 4/layer 4D/layer 4D’) is first hole transport layer HTL under layer 5 (red emitting material layer)), a hole injection layer under the first hole transporting layer (layer 3 is hole injecting layer under the first hole transporting layer 4 ) and a first electron transporting layer on the red emitting material layer (layer 6 is first electron transporting layer on red emitting material layer 5), wherein the second emitting part further includes a second hole transporting layer under the green emitting material layer ((layer 8/layer 8D) is second hole transport layer HTL under layer 9 (green emitting material layer) and a second electron transporting layer on the green emitting material layer (layer 10 is second electron transporting layer on green emitting material layer 9), and wherein the third emitting part further includes a third hole transporting layer under the blue emitting material layer (layer 12 is third hole transport layer HTL under layer 13 (blue emitting material layer, which is same as Example A1), a third electron transporting layer on the blue emitting material layer (layer 14 is third electron transporting layer on blue emitting material layer 13) and an electron injection layer on the third electron transporting layer (layer 15 is electron injection layer on the third electron transporting layer 14).
Re: Claim 8, Yokoyama, Ahn and Hamer disclose all the limitations of claim 7 on which this claim depends.
Hamer further teaches
wherein a thickness of the third hole transporting layer is greater than a thickness of the first hole transporting layer and is smaller than a thickness of the second hole transporting layer (Hamer teaches, in the modified microcavity example C3 relied on claim 7, thickness of first HTL layer 4D’ (HTL)=370A, thickness of second HTL layer 8 (HTL)+layer 8D (HTL) = 1020A + 260A =1280A, and thickness of third HTL 12 layer = 860A). Thus, this satisfied the claimed thickness of third HTL (86nm) is greater than thickness of first HTL (37nm) and is smaller than second HTL (128nm).
Re: Claim 9, Yokoyama, Ahn and Hamer disclose all the limitations of claim 8 on which this claim depends.
Hamer further teaches
wherein the thickness of the second hole transporting layer is in a range of approximately 125 to 165nm (Hamer, in ¶ [0143], Example C3, teaches thickness of second HTL layer 8 (HTL)+layer 8D (HTL) = 1020A + 260A =1280A=128nm, which is within the claimed range), and
the thickness of the third hole transporting layer is in a range of approximately 45 to 85nm (Hamer, in ¶ [0143], Example C3, teaches thickness of third HTL 12 layer = 860A= 86nm. Although Hamer teaches the thickness of 86nm in one modified example, which is only 1nm above the claimed endpoint of 85nm, Hamer also teaches closely neighboring thickness adjustments for the same HTL in the same device family, showing that HTL thickness is a result-effective variable subject to fine tuning. In view of the claimed modifier “approximately”, and in view of Hamer’s express teaching pf adjacent optimized HTL values, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, through no more than routine experimentation, to select the third HTL thickness within the claimed approximately 45nm to 85 nm, including a value at or very near 85nm, to obtain the expected microcavity and charge-transport performance.
Re: Claim 10, Yokoyama, Ahn and Hamer disclose all the limitations of claim 8 on which this claim depends.
Hamer further teaches
wherein the thickness of the first hole transporting layer is in a range of approximately 25 to 35nm (Hamer, in ¶ [0143], Example C3, teaches thickness of first HTL layer 4D’ (HTL)=370A= 37nm. Although Hamer teaches the thickness of 37nm in one modified example, which is only 2nm above the claimed endpoint of 35nm, Hamer also teaches closely neighboring thickness adjustments for the same HTL in the same device family, showing that HTL thickness is a result-effective variable subject to fine tuning. In view of the claimed modifier “approximately”, and in view of Hamer’s express teaching pf adjacent optimized HTL values, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, through no more than routine experimentation, to select the third HTL thickness within the claimed approximately 25nm to 35 nm, including a value at or very near 35nm, to obtain the expected microcavity and charge-transport performance),
the thickness of the second hole transporting layer is in a range of approximately 125 to 165nm (thickness of second HTL layer 8 (HTL)+layer 8D (HTL) = 1020A + 260A =1280A=128nm, which is within the claimed range), and
the thickness of the third hole transporting layer is in a range of approximately 45 to 85nm (Hamer, in ¶ [0143], Example C3, teaches thickness of third HTL 12 layer = 860A= 86nm. Although Hamer teaches the thickness of 86nm in one modified example, which is only 1nm above the claimed endpoint of 85nm, Hamer also teaches closely neighboring thickness adjustments for the same HTL in the same device family, showing that HTL thickness is a result-effective variable subject to fine tuning. In view of the claimed modifier “approximately”, and in view of Hamer’s express teaching pf adjacent optimized HTL values, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, through no more than routine experimentation, to select the third HTL thickness within the claimed approximately 45nm to 85 nm, including a value at or very near 85nm, to obtain the expected microcavity and charge-transport performance.
Re: Claim 11, Yokoyama, Ahn and Hamer disclose all the limitations of claim 7 on which this claim depends.
Regarding the limitation of claim 11, wherein a thickness of the first electron transporting layer is greater than a thickness of the second electron transporting layer, and is smaller than a thickness of the third electron transporting layer, Hamer teaches the relevant electron transport layer (ETL) thickness as adjustable design parameters in the same stacked OLED family. In Example B2, in ¶ [0134], Hamer teaches layer 4B (ETL)= 200A=20nm, teaches that layer 8B (ETL) is increased from 100A to 200A, and teaches that layer 14 (ETL) is reduced from 300A to 200A. Thus, Hamer discloses neighboring ETL values of 20nm for the first ETL, 10-20nm for the second ETL, and 20-20nm for the third ETL in the same red/green/blue stacked OLED design. This shows that the thickness of the first, second, and third ETLs were recognized in the art as adjustable result-effective variables used to tune the device.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, through no more than routine experimentation, to select the first ETL thickness to be greater than the second ETL thickness and smaller than the third ETL thickness, because Hamer expressly teaches that these ETL thicknesses are varied within closely neighboring values in the same OLED family, and small adjustments in ETL thickness would have been recognized as a predictable way to optimize carrier transport and microcavity performance. Here, selecting a first ETL thickness at about 20nm, a second ETL thickness toward the lower disclosed value, and a third ETL thickness toward the higher disclosed value would have been a predictable optimization of the ETL thickness already taught by Hamer.
Re: Claim 12, Yokoyama, Ahn and Hamer disclose all the limitations of claim 11 on which this claim depends.
Regarding the limitation of claim 12, wherein the thickness of the first electron transporting layer is a range of approximately 20 to 30nm, the thickness of the second electron transporting layer is a range of approximately 15 to 25nm, and the thickness of the third electron transporting layer is a range of approximately 25 to 35nm, Hamer teaches the relevant ETL thickness as adjustable design parameters in the same stacked OLED family. In Example B2, in ¶ [0134], Hamer teaches layer 4B (ETL)= 200A=20nm, teaches that layer 8B (ETL) is increased from 100A to 200A, and teaches that layer 14 (ETL) is reduced from 300A to 200A. Thus, Hamer discloses neighboring ETL values of 20nm for the first ETL, 10-20nm for the second ETL, and 20-20nm for the third ETL in the same red/green/blue stacked OLED design.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, through no more than routine experimentation, to select ETL thickness within the claimed approximate ranges, because Hamer expressly shows that the ETL thickness for the first, second, and third emitting parts were deliberately adjusted within closely neighboring values in the same OLED family for optical and electrical tuning. For those teachings, selecting the first ETL at about 20nm within the claimed approximately 20 to 30nm range, the second ETL within the overlapping portion of the disclosed 10-20nm range and the claimed approximately 15 to 25nm range, and the third ETL within the overlapping portion of the disclosed 20-30nm range and the claimed approximately 25 to 35nm range, would have been a predictable optimization of a known result-effective variable for optical and electrical tuning.
Re: Claim 14, Yokoyama and Ahn disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Yokoyama and Ahn are silent regarding
wherein the organic emitting layer further includes a first charge generation layer between the first and second emitting parts and a second charge generation layer between the second and third emitting parts.
However, Hamer teaches wherein the organic emitting layer further includes a first charge generation layer between the first and second emitting parts and a second charge generation layer between the second and third emitting parts (In Example A1, Hamer discloses layer 5 (red light emitting layer LEL), layer 6 (electron transport layer ETL), layer 7 (charge generation layer CGL1), layer 8 (hole transport layer HTL), layer 9 (green ETL), layer 10 (ETL), layer 11 (charge generation layer CGL2), layer 12 (HTL) and layer 13 (blue LEL1). Thus, CGL1 layer 7 is positioned between the first emitting part containing red material layer and the second emitting part containing the green emitting material layer, and CGL2 layer 11 is positioned between the second emitting part containing green material layer and the third emitting part containing the blue emitting material layer).
Yokoyama, Ahn and Hamer all disclose stacked OLED with vertically separated emissive parts, hence analogous art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the two charge generating layers taught by Hamer into the ordered red/green/blue OLED stack of Yokoyama in view of Ahn, in order to improve carrier balance and luminance in the vertically stacked emitting parts.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama (US 20120248467 A1) in view of Ahn (KR 20180078641 A) and further in view of Kim’439 (US 20210384439 A1).
Re: Claim 15, Yokoyama and Ahn disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Yokoyama and Ahn are silent regarding
further comprising: a color filter layer corresponding to the red, green and blue pixel regions and positioned between the substrate and the organic light emitting diode.
However, Kim’439 teaches
further comprising: a color filter layer corresponding to the red, green and blue pixel regions and positioned between the substrate and the organic light emitting diode (Kim’439, in Fig. 5 and ¶ [0018], teaches an organic light emitting device in which substrate 102 defines red, green, and blue pixels and OLED D is located correspondingly in those pixels, and further teaches a color filter layer 680 including red color filter 682, green color filter 684, and blue color filter 686 corresponding to those RGB pixels. Kim’439 further teaches color filter layer is disposed between the substrate and the organic light emitting diode). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the OLED device of Yokoyama in view of Ahn, to include the substrate-side RGB color-filter arrangement taught by Kim’439 in order to provide color separation for corresponding RGB pixels while allowing the OLED structure itself to be formed over the filter-bearing substrate side.
Prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to current application disclosure.
Wu (US 20210098730 A1) and Yang (US 20210091152 A1) disclose OLED device with blue, green and red light emitting layers stack structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BIPANA ADHIKARI DAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-4149. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:30am-7:30pm.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at (571) 272-2339. 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.
/BIPANA ADHIKARI DAWADI/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/JESSICA S MANNO/SPE, Art Unit 2898