DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed 10/23/2023.
Currently, claims 1-20 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 12, 21, 22 and 23. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because the information conveyed in para. [0037], [0039] and [0040] appears to be contradictory. While para. [0037] and [0040] state that FIG. 3 shows that the thickness of the hole blocking layer closest to the cathode is greater than that of the other hole blocking layers, para. [0039] states that FIG. 3 shows the opposite: “The thickness of the first hole blocking layer 32 is greater than that of the second hole blocking layer 33, and the thickness of the first hole blocking layer 32 is greater than that of the third hole blocking layer 34.” Referencing FIG. 3, this equates to the hole blocking layer furthest from the cathode having the greatest thickness.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 4 of claim 6, both a semicolon and a comma follow the limitation “cathode”.
In line 4, “at least comprises” should instead be “comprises at least” like the clause that follows it.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 19, which depends on claim 11, recites “wherein a material of the anode includes silver or aluminum alloy”. While the disclosure does support a material of the anode including silver or aluminum alloy, it is only disclosed for an embodiment in which the anode is a single layer (see para. [0059]). However, claim 11 requires an anode comprising a light-transmitting conductive layer and a reflective layer (i.e. not a single layer). This is disclosed in para. [0056] – [0058], and lists only indium tin oxide and silver as materials, which is claimed in claims 17 and 18. Thus, the combination of an anode comprising a light-transmitting conductive layer and a reflective layer, comprising an aluminum alloy material, is not disclosed in the originally filed application and is considered to be new matter.
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 limitation “remaining light-emitting functional layers” in line 9. It is not clear which light-emitting functional layers are considered to be “remaining”. While the preceding phrase “a light-emitting functional layer closest to the cathode” would apparently suggest that the “remaining” light-emitting functional layers would be those other than the one closest to the cathode, limitations in dependent claims suggest that the light-emitting functional layer closest to the cathode is included in the remaining light-emitting functional layers. For example, claim 4 recites “the thicknesses of the electron transport layers in the remaining light-emitting functional layers are the same, except for the electron transport layer in the light-emitting functional layer closest to the cathode”.
The term “remaining” is used throughout the claims. For purposes of examination, “remaining” is interpreted to mean the layers other than those closest to the cathode.
Furthermore, claim 6 recites the limitation “the thickness of the light-emitting layer in each of the remaining light-emitting functional layers” in lines 6-7, which lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Further still, claim 8 recites the limitation “the light-emitting layer in the light-emitting functional layer” in lines 4-5. There are n number of light-emitting functional layers. It is not clear to which light-emitting functional layer claim 8 refers.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-11 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kum et al. (US 2020/0052234) in view of Wang et al. (WO 2019/214378). Because Wang is a non-English document, the equivalent document US 9 is referenced in the rejections that follow.
Pertaining to claim 1, Kum shows, with reference to FIG. 4, an electroluminescent device, wherein the electroluminescent device comprises:
an anode (150), comprising a reflective material (para. [0067] – [0068]);
a cathode (154), opposite the anode (para. [0067]);
n light-emitting functional layers (ST1, ST2), laminated between the anode and the cathode; wherein
n is an integer greater than 1 (n=2); each of the n light-emitting functional layers comprises: a light-emitting layer (216/224), and an electron transport layer (218/226) at a side of the light-emitting layer close to the cathode (para. [0070] – [0071]); wherein a thickness (t2) of an electron transport layer (226) in a light-emitting functional layer closest to the cathode is greater than each of thicknesses (t1) of electron transport layers (218) in remaining light-emitting functional layers (para. [0099]); and
(n-1) charge generation layers (230) between two light-emitting functional layers adjacent to each other.
Kum fails to anticipate the claim in not showing that the cathode comprises a transflective material.
However, Wang teaches in para. [0049] that, for a similar light emitting structure, the cathode comprises a transflective material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kum to have a transflective cathode, as taught by Wang, with the motivation that this leads to the creation of a resonant cavity (para. [0049]), which is known to have beneficial effects such as increased brightness and efficiency.
Pertaining to claim 2, Kum discloses thickness ranges which overlap with the 1.5 to 2 ratio (para. [0099]).
Pertaining to claim 7, Kum shows the light-emitting functional layer closest to the cathode further comprises: an electron injection layer (228) between the electron transport layer and the cathode; wherein the electron injection layer at least comprises two materials, and the cathode comprises at least one material of the electron injection layer (para. [0082], [0103]).
Pertaining to claim 8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the cavity length of Kum in view of Wang to be within the claimed range, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Wang teaches resonant cavity length to be a result effective variable in para. [0099]).
Pertaining to claim 9, Wang teaches the cathode comprises magnesium and silver (para. [0056]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the ratio of Mg to Ag to be within the claimed range, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The ratio is known to affect conductivity and reflective properties.
Pertaining to claim 10, Wang teaches a thickness of the cathode that is within the range of 100 angstroms to 150 angstroms (para. [0060]).
Pertaining to claim 11, Kum shows the anode comprises a light-transmitting conductive layer and a reflective layer at a side of the light-transmitting conductive layer away from the cathode (para. [0055]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the thickness to be within the claimed range, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The thickness of the light-transmitting conductive layer affects the overall conductivity of the electrode.
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions or of any unexpected results arising there from. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in the claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1515, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Pertaining to claim 15, Kum shows a display apparatus, comprising the electroluminescent device according to claim 1 (FIG. 1, para. [0023]).
Pertaining to claim 16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the thickness of the electron injection layer to be within the claimed range, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The thickness affects the electron injection capabilities and overall device thickness.
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions or of any unexpected results arising there from. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in the claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1515, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Pertaining to claim 17, Kum shows a material of the light-transmitting conductive layer includes indium tin oxide (para. [0055]).
Pertaining to claims 18 and 19, Wang teaches the reflective material of the anode may be silver (para. [0056]).
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US 2018/0047926, cited in IDS) in view of Wang et al. (WO 2019/214378). Because Wang is a non-English document, the equivalent document US 2021/0327966 is referenced in the rejections that follow.
Pertaining to claim 1, Tanaka shows, with reference to FIG. 13, an electroluminescent device, wherein the electroluminescent device comprises:
an anode;
a cathode, opposite the anode;
n light-emitting functional layers (comprising hole transporting, light emitting, and electron transporting layers), laminated between the anode and the cathode; wherein
n is an integer greater than 1 (n=3); each of the n light-emitting functional layers comprises: a light-emitting layer, and an electron transport layer at a side of the light-emitting layer close to the cathode; wherein a thickness of an electron transport layer in a light-emitting functional layer closest to the cathode is greater than each of thicknesses of electron transport layers in remaining light-emitting functional layers (remaining ETLs are 15 and 5 nm, while ETL closest to cathode is up to 68 nm, para. [0205]); and
(n-1) charge generation layers between two light-emitting functional layers adjacent to each other.
Tanaka fails to anticipate the claim in not showing that the anode comprises a reflective material and the cathode comprises a transflective material.
However, Wang teaches in para. [0049] that, for a similar light emitting structure, the cathode comprises a transflective material and the anode comprises a reflective material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Tanaka to have a transflective cathode and reflective anode, as taught by Wang, with the motivation that this leads to the creation of a resonant cavity (para. [0049]), which is known to have beneficial effects such as increased brightness and efficiency.
Pertaining to claim 2, Tanaka shows the ETL closest to cathode may be 28 nm, which is within the claimed range relative to the middle ETL that is 15 nm.
Pertaining to claim 3, Tanaka shows n is greater than 2, and thicknesses of the (n-1) charge generation layers are the same (FIG. 13).
Pertaining to claim 6, in the case that the ETL closest to cathode is 68 nm, Tanaka shows the thickness of the electron transport layer in the light-emitting functional layer closest to the cathode is greater than a thickness of the light-emitting layer in the light-emitting functional layer closest to the cathode (30 nm); a thickness of the electron transport layer in each of the remaining light-emitting functional layers except for the light-emitting functional layer closest to the cathode (15 nm, 5 nm) is smaller than the thickness of the light-emitting layer in each of the remaining light-emitting functional layers (25 nm, 35 nm) except for the light-emitting functional layer closest to the cathode (FIG. 13).
Pertaining to claim 8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the cavity length of Tanaka in view of Wang to be within the claimed range, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Wang teaches resonant cavity length to be a result effective variable in para. [0099]).
Pertaining to claim 10, Wang teaches a thickness of the cathode that is within the range of 100 angstroms to 150 angstroms (para. [0060]).
Pertaining to claim 15, Tanaka shows a display apparatus, comprising the electroluminescent device according to claim 1 (para. [0010]).
Pertaining to claim 16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the thickness of the electron injection layer to be within the claimed range, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The thickness affects the electron injection capabilities and overall device thickness.
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions or of any unexpected results arising there from. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in the claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1515, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 12-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either one of Kum or Tanaka in view of Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park (US 2019/0312221).
Pertaining to claim 12, Kum or Tanaka in view of Wang teaches the device of claim 1, but fails to teach the capping layer at a side of the cathode away from the anode.
However, Park teaches in para. [0101] that, for a device similar to Kum or Tanaka in view of Wang, a capping layer is formed on top of the cathode. Although Park does not explicitly teach the optical distance, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the optical distance to have a value within the claimed range, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions or of any unexpected results arising there from. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in the claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1515, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a capping layer on the cathode of Kum or Tanaka in view of Wang, as taught by Park, with the motivation that the capping layer acts to protect the organic light emitting device (para. [0101]).
Pertaining to claim 13, Kum or Tanaka in view of Wang teaches the device of claim 1, but fails to teach that the light-emitting layers emit light with a same color.
However, Park teaches in para. [0113] that, for a device similar to Kum or Tanaka in view of Wang, the light-emitting layers may emit light of different colors or may emit light of a same color.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the layers emitting different colors of Kum or Tanaka in view of Wang for the layers emitting a same color as taught by Park, as the court has held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). In this case, the substitution leads to the predictable result of a monocolor light emitting device (para. [0113]), thus providing a different functionality.
Pertaining to claims 14 and 20, Park teaches the color may be blue, red, or green (para. [0113]).
Allowable Subject Matter
The general subject matter recited in claim 4, which includes the limitations of claims 1 and 3, is allowable. Namely, the electron transport layer in the light-emitting functional layer closest to the cathode being thicker than the electron transport layers in the other (at least two) light-emitting functional layers in combination with the thicknesses of those electron transport layers in the other (at least two) light-emitting functional layers being equal is found to be allowable.
In the prior art references that disclose n>2 light-emitting functional layers with a thickest electron transport layer in the light-emitting functional layer closest to the cathode, the other electron transport layers are not equal. See Tanaka, Table 5 (p. 15) which shows the thicknesses of the other electron transport layers being equal only when the electron transport layer closest to the cathode has the smallest thickness. In the case where the electron transport layer closest to the cathode has the greatest thickness, the thicknesses of the other electron transport layers are not equal. Similarly, Kim et al. (KR 20180062220) teaches the electron transport layer closest to the cathode has the greatest thickness, but the thicknesses of the other electron transport layers are not equal. See FIG. 2 and Table 2 (p. 11). Yu et al. (US 2022/0173324) teaches a device with n>2 light-emitting functional layers where the electron transport layer closest to the cathode may have the greatest thickness, but the thickness of the middle electron transport layer is greater than that of the electron transport layer farthest from the cathode (para. [0208], FIG. 6). Kum also teaches an embodiment with n>2 light-emitting functional layers, but again, the thickness of the middle electron transport layer (t4) is greater than that of the electron transport layer farthest from the cathode (t1) (para. [0123]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Seo et al. (US 2020/0194704) discloses a light-emitting device where the electron transport layer closest to the cathode has thickness greater than the other electron transport layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL M LUKE whose telephone number is (571)270-1569. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/DANIEL LUKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896