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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/07/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 08/29/2023 are 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, 8, 18, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hamer et al. (US 20210159462 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hamer discloses a display panel (300), comprising a plurality of light emitting devices arranged in an array (per [0006]), wherein each of the plurality of light emitting devices comprises:
a first electrode (54); ([0151]-[0184], Fig. 7)
a first light emitting layer (94) on the first electrode; ([0151]-[0184], Fig. 7)
a second light emitting layer (60) on a side of the first light emitting layer (94) away from the first electrode (54); ([0151]-[0184], Fig. 7)
a third light emitting layer (68) on a side of the second light emitting layer (60) away from the first electrode (54); ([0151]-[0184], Fig. 7)
a fourth light emitting layer (76) on a side of the third light emitting layer (68) away from the first electrode (54); ([0151]-[0184], Fig. 7)
a fifth light emitting layer (84) on a side of the fourth light emitting layer (76) away from the first electrode (54); and ([0151]-[0184], Fig. 7)
a second electrode (90) on a side of the fifth light emitting layer (84) away from the first electrode (54), wherein:
a microcavity (95) is formed between the first electrode (54) and the second electrode (90); ([0060], Fig. 7)
four light emitting layers (94, 60, 68, 84) among the first light emitting layer, the second light emitting layer, the third light emitting layer, the fourth light emitting layer and the fifth light emitting layer emit light having a first wavelength (blue light); ([0151]-[0184], [0145], Fig. 7) and
a remaining light emitting layer (76), other than the four light emitting layers (94, 60, 68, 84) emitting the light having the first wavelength among the first light emitting layer, the second light emitting layer, the third light emitting layer, the fourth light emitting layer and the fifth light emitting layer emits light having a second wavelength (green light), wherein the first wavelength (blue light), is smaller than the second wavelength (green light). ([0151]-[0184], Fig. 7)
Regarding claim 8, Hamer discloses the display panel according to claim 2, wherein the first light emitting layer (94), the second light emitting layer (60), the third light emitting layer (68) and the fifth light emitting layer (84) emit blue light, and the fourth light emitting layer (76) emits green light. ([0025], [0151]-0184], Fig.7)
Regarding claim 18, Hamer discloses the display panel according to claim 1,wherein each of the plurality of light emitting devices further comprises a first charge generating layer (96) between the first light emitting layer (94) and the second light emitting layer (60), a second charge generating layer (64) between the second light emitting layer (60) and the third light emitting layer (68), a third charge generating layer (72) between the third light emitting layer (68) and the fourth light emitting layer (76), and a fourth charge generating layer (80) between the fourth light emitting layer (76) and the fifth light emitting layer (84). ([0160], Fig. 7)
Regarding claim 19, Hamer discloses the display panel according to claim 1,wherein at least one light emitting layer in the plurality of light emitting devices comprises one or two layers of a hole injection layer (56) and a hole transport layer (58) which are on a side close to the first electrode (54), and one or two layers of an electron transport layer (86) and an electron injection layer (88) away from the first electrode (54). ([0174], [0175], [0177], [0182], Fig 7)
Regarding claim 21, Hamer discloses a display apparatus ([0001]-[0003]), comprising the display panel (300) according to claim 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-7, 9-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamer et al. (US 20210159462 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Hamer discloses the display panel according to claim 1. Hamer does not explicitly disclose wherein the light having the first wavelength emitted by the four light emitting layers forms a first standing wave in the light emitting device, and the light having the second wavelength emitted by the remaining light emitting layer forms a second standing wave in the light emitting device.
However, Hamer does disclose:
“One well-known method of increasing the luminance and color purity of OLED emission is by taking advantage of the optical microcavity effect. This effect is based on creating an optical resonator between a reflecting surface and a semi-reflective surface which allows some light to pass. Multiple reflections between the two surfaces create standing waves, depending on optical distance between the two surfaces, which will intensify some wavelengths of light and decrease others because of constructive and destructive interference effects that will occur depending on whether the emissions are generated at the anti-nodes or nodes, respectively, of the standing waves. The anti-nodes occur at different locations depending on the total space between the reflectors, and on the wavelength being optimized. Optical models based on mathematical calculations can be useful in determining the ideal emitter positions for a given structure” in [0009].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the light having the first wavelength emitted by the four light emitting layers forms a first standing wave in the light emitting device, and the light having the second wavelength emitted by the remaining light emitting layer forms a second standing wave in the light emitting device, since it was known in the art that “multiple reflections between the two surfaces create standing waves” (Hamer, [0009]) see MPEP 2144.
Regarding claim 3, Hamer discloses the display panel according to claim 2. Hamer does not explicitly disclose wherein a first distance from a first surface of the first electrode close to the first light emitting layer to a surface of the first light emitting layer on a side away from the first electrode is less than 500 A.
However, Hamer does disclose:
“for blue light, higher intensities are predicted closer to the anode” In [0047].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Hamer for a first distance from a first surface of the first electrode close to the first light emitting layer to a surface of the first light emitting layer on a side away from the first electrode is less than 500 A, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 because “there exists a need for a white light-emitting OLED formulation with increased blue emission that would be suitable for use in a micro-display. A white light-emitting microcavity OLED with at least two blue-emitting layers can provide increased blue emission. Depending on the size of the microcavity, the spacing of the blue light-emitting layers relative to each other as well as to the reflective surface of the microcavity can be important to achieve high blue emission.” (Hamer, [0021])
Regarding claim 4, Hamer discloses the display panel according to claim 2. Hamer does not disclose wherein the second light emitting layer, the third light emitting layer, the fourth light emitting layer and the fifth light emitting layer emit blue light, and the first light emitting layer emits green light.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Hamer for the second light emitting layer, the third light emitting layer, the fourth light emitting layer and the fifth light emitting layer emit blue light, and the first light emitting layer emits green light, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70, because “there exists a need for a white light-emitting OLED formulation with increased blue emission that would be suitable for use in a micro-display. A white light-emitting microcavity OLED with at least two blue-emitting layers can provide increased blue emission. Depending on the size of the microcavity, the spacing of the blue light-emitting layers relative to each other as well as to the reflective surface of the microcavity can be important to achieve high blue emission.” (Hamer, [0021])
Regarding claim 5, Hamer discloses the display panel according to claim 4. Hamer does not explicitly disclose wherein a surface of the first electrode facing the first light emitting layer serves as a reference surface, the second light emitting layer is located at a second antinode of the first standing wave, the third light emitting layer is located at a third antinode of the first standing wave, the fourth light emitting layer is located at a fourth antinode of the first standing wave, the fifth light emitting layer is located at a fifth antinode of the first standing wave, and the first light emitting layer is located at a first antinode of the second standing wave.
However, Hamer discloses:
“The anti-nodes occur at different locations depending on the total space between the reflectors, and on the wavelength being optimized. Optical models based on mathematical calculations can be useful in determining the ideal emitter positions for a given structure” in [0009] and “As the optical thickness of the microcavity is increased compared to the wavelength of light in the organic medium, there can be multiple anti-nodes for a particular color within the microcavity” in [0011].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Hamer for a surface of the first electrode facing the first light emitting layer serves as a reference surface, the second light emitting layer is located at a second antinode of the first standing wave, the third light emitting layer is located at a third antinode of the first standing wave, the fourth light emitting layer is located at a fourth antinode of the first standing wave, the fifth light emitting layer is located at a fifth antinode of the first standing wave, and the first light emitting layer is located at a first antinode of the second standing wave with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990) so as “to utilize multiple emitters of the same spectrum in order to meet the desired output requirements for a particular use. The multiple emitters could be used by themselves to make an extremely bright monochrome display, or it could be used with other emitters to produce a balanced white display.” (Hamer, [0011])
Regrading claim 6, Hamer discloses the display panel according to claim 2. Hamer does not disclose wherein the first light emitting layer, the third light emitting layer, the fourth light emitting layer and the fifth light emitting layer emit blue light, and the second light emitting layer emits green light.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Hamer for the first light emitting layer, the third light emitting layer, the fourth light emitting layer and the fifth light emitting layer emit blue light, and the second light emitting layer emits green light, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. because “there exists a need for a white light-emitting OLED formulation with increased blue emission that would be suitable for use in a micro-display. A white light-emitting microcavity OLED with at least two blue-emitting layers can provide increased blue emission. Depending on the size of the microcavity, the spacing of the blue light-emitting layers relative to each other as well as to the reflective surface of the microcavity can be important to achieve high blue emission.” (Hamer, [0021])
Regarding claim 7, Hamer discloses the display panel according to claim 6. Hamer does not disclose wherein a surface of the first electrode facing the first light emitting layer serves as a reference surface, the first light emitting layer is located at a first antinode of the first standing wave, the third light emitting layer is located at a third antinode of the first standing wave, the fourth light emitting layer is located at a fourth antinode of the first standing wave, the fifth light emitting layer is located at a fifth antinode of the first standing wave, and the second light emitting layer is located at a second antinode of the second standing wave.
However, Hamer discloses:
“The anti-nodes occur at different locations depending on the total space between the reflectors, and on the wavelength being optimized. Optical models based on mathematical calculations can be useful in determining the ideal emitter positions for a given structure” in [0009] and “As the optical thickness of the microcavity is increased compared to the wavelength of light in the organic medium, there can be multiple anti-nodes for a particular color within the microcavity” in [0011].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Hamer for a surface of the first electrode facing the first light emitting layer serves as a reference surface, the first light emitting layer is located at a first antinode of the first standing wave, the third light emitting layer is located at a third antinode of the first standing wave, the fourth light emitting layer is located at a fourth antinode of the first standing wave, the fifth light emitting layer is located at a fifth antinode of the first standing wave, and the second light emitting layer is located at a second antinode of the second standing wave with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990) so as “to utilize multiple emitters of the same spectrum in order to meet the desired output requirements for a particular use. The multiple emitters could be used by themselves to make an extremely bright monochrome display, or it could be used with other emitters to produce a balanced white display.” (Hamer, [0011])
Regarding claim 8, Hamer discloses the display panel according to claim 2. Hamer does not disclose wherein the first light emitting layer, the second light emitting layer, the third light emitting layer and the fifth light emitting layer emit blue light, and the fourth light emitting layer emits green light.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Hamer for the first light emitting layer, the second light emitting layer, the third light emitting layer and the fifth light emitting layer emit blue light, and the fourth light emitting layer emits green light, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. because “there exists a need for a white light-emitting OLED formulation with increased blue emission that would be suitable for use in a micro-display. A white light emitting microcavity OLED with at least two blue-emitting layers can provide increased blue emission. Depending on the size of the microcavity, the spacing of the blue light-emitting layers relative to each other as well as to the reflective surface of the microcavity can be important to achieve high blue emission.” (Hamer, [0021])
Regarding claim 9, Hamer discloses the display panel according to claim 8. Hamer does not disclose wherein a surface of the first electrode facing the first light emitting layer serves as a reference surface, the first light emitting layer is located at a first antinode of the first standing wave, the second light emitting layer is located at a second antinode of the first standing wave, and the third light emitting layer is located at a third antinode of the first standing wave, the fifth light emitting layer is located at a fifth antinode of the first standing wave, and the fourth light emitting layer is located at a third antinode of the second standing wave.
However, Hamer discloses:
“The anti-nodes occur at different locations depending on the total space between the reflectors, and on the wavelength being optimized. Optical models based on mathematical calculations can be useful in determining the ideal emitter positions for a given structure” in [0009] and “As the optical thickness of the microcavity is increased compared to the wavelength of light in the organic medium, there can be multiple anti-nodes for a particular color within the microcavity” in [0011].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Hamer for a surface of the first electrode facing the first light emitting layer serves as a reference surface, the first light emitting layer is located at a first antinode of the first standing wave, the second light emitting layer is located at a second antinode of the first standing wave, and the third light emitting layer is located at a third antinode of the first standing wave, the fifth light emitting layer is located at a fifth antinode of the first standing wave, and the fourth light emitting layer is located at a third antinode of the second standing wave with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990) so as “to utilize multiple emitters of the same spectrum in order to meet the desired output requirements for a particular use. The multiple emitters could be used by themselves to make an extremely bright monochrome display, or it could be used with other emitters to produce a balanced white display.” (Hamer, [0011])
Regarding claim 10, Hamer discloses the display panel according to claim 2. Hamer does not disclose wherein the first light emitting layer, the second light emitting layer, the third light emitting layer, and the fourth light emitting layer emit blue light, and the fifth light emitting layer emits green light.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Hamer for the first light emitting layer, the second light emitting layer, the third light emitting layer, and the fourth light emitting layer emit blue light, and the fifth light emitting layer emits green light, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. because “there exists a need for a white light-emitting OLED formulation with increased blue emission that would be suitable for use in a micro-display. A white light emitting microcavity OLED with at least two blue-emitting layers can provide increased blue emission. Depending on the size of the microcavity, the spacing of the blue light-emitting layers relative to each other as well as to the reflective surface of the microcavity can be important to achieve high blue emission.” (Hamer, [0021])
Regarding claim 11, Hamer discloses the display panel according to claim 10. Hamer does not disclose wherein a surface of the first electrode facing the first light emitting layer serves as a reference surface, the first light emitting layer is located at a first antinode of the first standing wave, the second light emitting layer is located at a second antinode of the first standing wave, and the third light emitting layer is located at a third antinode of the first standing wave, the fourth light emitting layer is located at a fourth antinode of the first standing wave, and the fifth light emitting layer is located at a fourth antinode of the second standing wave.
However, Hamer discloses:
“The anti-nodes occur at different locations depending on the total space between the reflectors, and on the wavelength being optimized. Optical models based on mathematical calculations can be useful in determining the ideal emitter positions for a given structure” in [0009] and “As the optical thickness of the microcavity is increased compared to the wavelength of light in the organic medium, there can be multiple anti-nodes for a particular color within the microcavity” in [0011].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Hamer for a surface of the first electrode facing the first light emitting layer serves as a reference surface, the first light emitting layer is located at a first antinode of the first standing wave, the second light emitting layer is located at a second antinode of the first standing wave, and the third light emitting layer is located at a third antinode of the first standing wave, the fourth light emitting layer is located at a fourth antinode of the first standing wave, and the fifth light emitting layer is located at a fourth antinode of the second standing wave with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990) so as “to utilize multiple emitters of the same spectrum in order to meet the desired output requirements for a particular use. The multiple emitters could be used by themselves to make an extremely bright monochrome display, or it could be used with other emitters to produce a balanced white display.” (Hamer, [0011])
Regarding claim 12, Hamer discloses the display panel according to claim 2. Hamer does not disclose wherein a second distance between the first electrode and the second electrode is equal to 5 times a distance between two adjacent antinodes of the first standing wave or 4 times a distance between two adjacent antinodes of the second standing wave; or wherein a second distance between the first electrode and the second electrode is equal to 6 times a distance between two adjacent antinodes of the first standing wave or 5 times a distance between two adjacent antinodes of the second standing wave.
However, Hamer does disclose:
“emitting layers according to the emission wavelength should be located at specific distances (i.e. at the antinodes) between the defining surfaces of the microcavity in order to maximize the microcavity effect that increases efficiency.” In [0044] and
“In the OLED microcavity 95 in FIG. 5, the physical distance L0 from the reflective surface to the semi-transparent second electrode is constant throughout the entire active light-emitting area.” in [0063] and “An OLED microcavity device 300 (similar to FIG. 5) is shown in FIG. 7” in [0095].
The examiner believes because there are 5 light emitting layers between the first and second electrodes then one ordinarily skilled in the art could determine “a second distance between the first electrode and the second electrode is equal to 5 times a distance between two adjacent antinodes of the first standing wave” through routine experimentation and the fact that the prior art discloses the distance between the reflective surface to the semi-transparent second electrode is constant throughout the entire active light-emitting area. Similarly, one could determine the other optional distances through routine experimentation based on the prior art disclosure and therefore the examiner has met the claimed limitation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Hamer for a second distance between the first electrode and the second electrode is equal to 5 times a distance between two adjacent antinodes of the first standing wave with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990) so as to “maximize the microcavity effect that increases efficiency” (Hamer, [0044])
Regarding claim 13, Hamer discloses the display panel according to claim 2. Hamer does not disclose wherein a first distance from a first surface of the first electrode close to the first light emitting layer to a surface of the first light emitting layer on a side away from the first electrode is greater than 1200 A.
However, Hamer does disclose:
“The multimodal light-emitting microcavity OLED can have two different ranges for the distance L.sub.0; the first range where the distance L.sub.0 is in the range of 6500-7800 Å and a second range where the distance L.sub.0 is in the range of 8000-9000 Å.” In [0024] and
“In the OLED microcavity 95 in FIG. 5, the physical distance L0 from the reflective surface to the semi-transparent second electrode is constant throughout the entire active light-emitting area.” in [0063] and “An OLED microcavity device 300 (similar to FIG. 5) is shown in FIG. 7” in [0095].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Hamer for a first distance from a first surface of the first electrode close to the first light emitting layer to a surface of the first light emitting layer on a side away from the first electrode is greater than 1200 A with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990) so as to “maximize the microcavity effect that increases efficiency” (Hamer, [0044]).
Regarding claim 14, Hamer discloses the display panel according to claim 1. Hamer does not disclose wherein the second light emitting layer, the third light emitting layer, the fourth light emitting layer, and the fifth light emitting layer emit blue light, and the first light emitting layer emits green light.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Hamer for the second light emitting layer, the third light emitting layer, the fourth light emitting layer, and the fifth light emitting layer emit blue light, and the first light emitting layer emits green light, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. because “there exists a need for a white light-emitting OLED formulation with increased blue emission that would be suitable for use in a micro-display. A white light emitting microcavity OLED with at least two blue-emitting layers can provide increased blue emission. Depending on the size of the microcavity, the spacing of the blue light-emitting layers relative to each other as well as to the reflective surface of the microcavity can be important to achieve high blue emission.” (Hamer, [0021])
Regarding claim 15, Hamer discloses the display panel according to claim 14. Hamer does not disclose wherein a surface of the first electrode facing the first light emitting layer serves as a reference surface, the second light emitting layer is located at a third antinode of the first standing wave, the third light emitting layer is located at a fourth antinode of the first standing wave, the fourth light emitting layer is located at a fifth antinode of the first standing wave, the fifth light emitting layer is located at a sixth antinode of the first standing wave, and the first light emitting layer is located at a second antinode of the second standing wave.
However, Hamer discloses:
“The anti-nodes occur at different locations depending on the total space between the reflectors, and on the wavelength being optimized. Optical models based on mathematical calculations can be useful in determining the ideal emitter positions for a given structure” in [0009] and “As the optical thickness of the microcavity is increased compared to the wavelength of light in the organic medium, there can be multiple anti-nodes for a particular color within the microcavity” in [0011].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Hamer for a surface of the first electrode facing the first light emitting layer serves as a reference surface, the second light emitting layer is located at a third antinode of the first standing wave, the third light emitting layer is located at a fourth antinode of the first standing wave, the fourth light emitting layer is located at a fifth antinode of the first standing wave, the fifth light emitting layer is located at a sixth antinode of the first standing wave, and the first light emitting layer is located at a second antinode of the second standing wave with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990) so as “to utilize multiple emitters of the same spectrum in order to meet the desired output requirements for a particular use. The multiple emitters could be used by themselves to make an extremely bright monochrome display, or it could be used with other emitters to produce a balanced white display.” (Hamer, [0011])
Regarding claim 17, Hamer discloses the display panel according to claim 1, wherein each of the four light emitting layers (94, 60, 68, 84) emitting light having the first wavelength (blue per [0145] and [0151-[0184]) among the first light emitting layer, the second light emitting layer, the third light emitting layer, the fourth light emitting layer and the fifth light emitting layer has a thickness in a range of 200 A to 250 A (per [0112]).
Hamer does not disclose:
and the light emitting layer emitting light having the second wavelength among the first light emitting layer, the second light emitting layer, the third light emitting layer, the fourth light emitting layer and the fifth light emitting layer has a thickness in a range of 300 A to 350 A.
However, Hamer discloses:
“The desired overall size or width of a microcavity is determined by four factors: the desired emission output (which can be modulated by the use of color filters), the spectrum (intensity vs wavelength) of the light emitter within the LEL, the thickness of the LELs and the driving voltage (driving voltage increases with device thickness and the number of LELs present). It is important to note that a different sized microcavity will have a different emission output than another, even if all internal components within the microcavity are the same. This is because the microcavity effect depends not only on the overall size of the microcavity, but also on the location within the microcavity where photons of a given wavelength are generated. All of these factors must be considered when designing a high efficiency OLED microcavity, along with the compromises necessary for their incorporation” in [0049].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Hamer for the light emitting layer emitting light having the second wavelength among the first light emitting layer, the second light emitting layer, the third light emitting layer, the fourth light emitting layer and the fifth light emitting layer has a thickness in a range of 300 A to 350 A with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990) so as to “maximize the microcavity effect that increases efficiency” (Hamer, [0044]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamer et al. (US 20210159462 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 20230016588 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Hamer discloses the display panel according to claim 1. Hamer does not disclose further comprising a wavelength conversion layer on a side of the second electrode away from the first electrode, wherein a material of the wavelength conversion layer comprises quantum dots.
However, Park discloses:
further comprising a wavelength conversion layer (CCL) on a side of the second electrode (EL2) away from the first electrode (EL1), wherein a material of the wavelength conversion layer comprises quantum dots (QD). ([0068], [0090] Fig. 4A)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Hamer and Park to have a wavelength conversion layer on a side of the second electrode away from the first electrode, wherein a material of the wavelength conversion layer comprises quantum dots in order to have “a light-emitting device with improved luminous efficiency and device lifetime” (Park, 0007])
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