DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Li et al. US 2022/0077417 in view of Lee et al. US 2021/0305529.
PNG
media_image1.png
298
866
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Li et al. US 2022/0077417
Regarding claim 1, Li et al. in Fig. 2 (annotated above) and [0031]-[0051] disclose a light-emitting element, comprising:
a cathode [0033];
an intermediate layer (e.g. second metal layer);
an electron injection layer (e.g. mixed material layer);
an electron transport layer [0040]; a light-emitting layer [0034]-[0038]; and
an anode [0033], all of which are provided in a stated order,
the cathode has a metal layer containing first metal atoms (e.g. Al, Mg [0033]) arranged in a region in contact with the intermediate layer (e.g. second metal layer, Al, Mg [0045]), and
the intermediate layer (e.g. second metal layer, Al, Mg [0045]) includes a region in contact with the metal layer of the cathode (e.g. Al, Mg [0033]), and contains in the region: second metal atoms (e.g. Al, Mg [0045]) an element of which is equal to an element of the first metal atoms; and oxygen atoms [0043]-[0045].
Li et al. do not expressly disclose wherein an electron affinity of the electron injection layer (e.g. mixed material layer, Al2O3) is greater than a work function of the cathode (e.g. Al), and is greater than an electron affinity of the electron transport layer (e.g. ZnO2).
However, Lee et al. in [0084] and [0085] teach a light emitting device including an electron injection layer 50. Lee et al. further teach that the electron injection layer includes a metal oxide such as aluminum oxide, AZO, TiO2, ZnO, WO3--, MoO3. Since the metal oxide has n-type semiconductor properties, it has excellent electron transport capability, and further, it is a material that is not reactive to air or moisture, and may be selected from semiconductor materials having excellent transparency in the visible light.
Applicant’s disclosure [0042] describes the electron injection layer 4 to contain molybdenum oxide, MoOx and tungsten oxide, WOx-- as materials with an electron affinity greater than an electron affinity of the electron transport layer (e.g. ZnO) and greater than a work function of the cathode (e.g. Al) [0030]-[0031].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee et al. in the device of Li et al. for the purpose of improving the performance of the light emitting device.
Regarding claim 2, Li et al. in view of Lee et al. [0042] teach the light-emitting element according to claim 1. Lee et al. in [0085] teach wherein the electron injection layer contains Mo atoms or W atoms.
Regarding claim 3, Li et al. in view of Lee et al. teach the light-emitting element according to claim 2. Lee et al. in [0085] teach wherein the electron injection layer further contains oxygen atoms.
Regarding claim 4, Li et al. in view of Lee et al. teach the light-emitting element according to claim 2. Lee et al. in [0085] teach wherein the electron injection layer contains a Mo oxide or a W oxide.
Regarding claim 5, Li et al. in view of Lee et al. [0042] teach the light-emitting element according to claim 1, wherein an absolute value of a difference between the work function of the cathode (e.g. Al) and the electron affinity of the electron injection layer (e.g. MoO or WO) is 0.8 eV or more.
Regarding claim 6, Li et al. in view of Lee et al. [0042] teach the light-emitting element according to claim 1, wherein an absolute value of a difference between the electron affinity of the electron injection layer (e.g. MoO or WO) and the electron affinity of the electron transport layer (e.g. ZnO2) is 1.0 eV or more.
Regarding claim 7, Li et al. in view of Lee et al. teaches the light-emitting element according to claim 2. Lee et al. in [0108] teaches wherein the electron injection layer 50 has a thickness of 0.1 nm or more and 20 nm or less.
Regarding claim 9, Li et al. in view of Lee et al. [0042] teach the light-emitting element according to claim 1. Li et al. teach wherein the electron injection layer is shaped into islands or particles [0027]-[0029].
Regarding claim 10, Li et al. in view of Lee et al. [0042] teach the light-emitting element according to claim 9. Li et al. teach wherein the intermediate layer has a thickness of 0.1 nm or more and 2 nm or less [0048].
Regarding claim 11, Li et al. in view of Lee et al. [0042] teach the light-emitting element according to claim 10. Li et al. teach wherein the intermediate layer has a thickness of 0.3 nm or more and 1 nm or less.
Regarding claim 12, Li et al. in view of Lee et al. [0042] teach the light-emitting element according to claim 1, Li et al. teach wherein the electron transport layer contains Zn atoms [0049].
Regarding claim 13, Li et al. in view of Lee et al. [0042] teach the light-emitting element according to claim 1. Li et al. teach wherein the electron transport layer contains a Zn oxide [0049].
Regarding claim 14, Li et al. in view of Lee et al. [0042] teach the light-emitting element according to claim 1. Li et al. teach wherein the electron transport layer contains nanoparticles [0049].
Regarding claim 15, Li et al. in view of Lee et al. [0042] teach the light-emitting element according to claim 14. Li et al. teach wherein the nanoparticles contain Zn atoms and oxygen atoms [0049].
Regarding claim 16, Li et al. in view of Lee et al. [0042] teach the light-emitting element according to claim 9. Li et al. teach wherein the first metal atoms [0033] and the second metal atoms [0045] are made of aluminum.
Regarding claim 17, Li et al. in view of Lee et al. teaches the light-emitting element according to claim 1. Lee et al. in [0064] teaches wherein the light-emitting layer contains a quantum dot phosphor.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. and Lee et al. as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Kobayashi et al. US 8,922,112.
Regarding claim 8, Li et al. in view of Lee et al. teaches the light-emitting element according to claim 7. Lee et al. in [0108] teaches wherein the electron injection layer has a thickness of 0.1 nm or more and 20 nm or less but does not expressly teach wherein the electron injection layer has a thickness of 0.3 nm or more and 3 nm or less.
Kobayashi et al. in col. 14, lines 45-48 teach a light emitting device with an electron injection layer 46 having a layer thickness of 1 nm. Kobayashi et al. further teach that the electron injection layer 46 increases the injection efficiency of electrons from the cathode to improve the luminance efficiency.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kobayashi et al. in the device of Li et al. for the purpose of improving luminance efficiency.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. and Lee et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kobayashi et al. US 8,922,112.
Regarding claim 18, Li et al. in view of Lee et al. [0042] teach the light-emitting element according to claim 1 but do not expressly teach a light-emitting apparatus, comprising a plurality of the light-emitting elements wherein at least two of the plurality of light-emitting elements have different emission wavelengths, and electron injection layers of the at least two light-emitting elements have different thicknesses.
Kobayashi et al. in col. 4, lines 28-40 teach a light emitting device with first, second and third light emitting elements. Kobayashi et al. further teach that setting the layer thicknesses of the electron injection and transport layer to different values for the first to third light emitting elements, the resonant lengths of the first to third light emitting elements can be changed, and accordingly, three types of projected light in which different wavelengths are enhanced by the first to third light emitting elements can be acquired. The light projected from the fourth light emitting element is a mixture of the three types of projected light, and accordingly, white light having a low wavelength dispersion property can be acquired without increasing the film forming process. As a result, a light emitting device having improved display quality with an increase in the manufacturing costs suppressed can be acquired.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kobayashi et al. in the device of Li et al. and Lee et al. for the purpose of improving display quality while limiting the manufacturing costs.
Regarding claim 19, Li et al. in view of Lee et al. and further in view of Kobayashi et al. teaches the light-emitting apparatus according to claim 18, but do not expressly teach wherein, of the at least two light-emitting elements, a light-emitting element having a long emission wavelength includes an electron injection layer thicker than an electron injection layer of a light-emitting element having a short emission wavelength.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Regarding claim 20, Li et al. in view of Lee et al. [0042] teach the light-emitting element according to claim 1 but do not expressly teach a display apparatus, comprising a plurality of the light-emitting elements
wherein one of the plurality of light-emitting elements emits light an emission spectrum of which has a peak wavelength of 430 nm or more and 485 nm or less,
an other one of the plurality of light-emitting elements emits light an emission spectrum of which has a peak wavelength of 500 nm or more and 565 nm or less,
still an other one of the plurality of light-emitting elements emits light an emission spectrum of which has a peak wavelength of 620 nm or more and 770 nm or less,
an electron injection layer of the one of the plurality of light-emitting elements is thicker than an electron injection layer of the other one of the plurality of light-emitting elements, and
the electron injection layer of the other one of the plurality of light-emitting elements is thicker than an electron injection layer of still the other one of the plurality of light-emitting elements.
Kobayashi et al. in col. 4, lines 28-40 teach a light emitting device with first, second and third light emitting elements (wavelengths 600 nm to 700 nm for red light, 500 nm to 600 nm for green light and 450 nm to 480 nm for blue light, Figs. 1-13B, col. 16, line 5-col. 21, line 67). Kobayashi et al. further teach that setting the layer thicknesses of the electron injection and transport layer to different values for the first to third light emitting elements, the resonant lengths of the first to third light emitting elements can be changed, and accordingly, three types of projected light in which different wavelengths are enhanced by the first to third light emitting elements can be acquired. The light projected from the fourth light emitting element is a mixture of the three types of projected light, and accordingly, white light having a low wavelength dispersion property can be acquired without increasing the film forming process. As a result, a light emitting device having improved display quality with an increase in the manufacturing costs suppressed can be acquired.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kobayashi et al. in the device of Li et al. and Lee et al. for the purpose of improving display quality while limiting the manufacturing costs.
Li et al. and Lee et al. in view of Kobayashi et al. do not expressly teach an electron injection layer of the one of the plurality of light-emitting elements is thicker than an electron injection layer of the other one of the plurality of light-emitting elements, and
the electron injection layer of the other one of the plurality of light-emitting elements is thicker than an electron injection layer of still the other one of the plurality of light-emitting elements.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONYA D MCCALL-SHEPARD whose telephone number is (571)272-9801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Julio J. Maldonado can be reached at (571)272-1864. 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.
/Sonya McCall-Shepard/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights