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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7-14, 22, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2019/0198788 A1; hereinafter “Park”) (Park et al. is listed in 12/27/2023 IDS) in view of Chung et al. (US 20200328368 A1; hereinafter “Chung”).
In re claim 1, Park discloses in figs. 3A-3B, a light-emitting element comprising:
a lower electrode 110 having light reflectivity (¶59);
an upper electrode 120 having light transparency and light reflectivity (¶59);
a lower light-emitting layer 143 and an upper light-emitting layer 185 disposed between the lower electrode 110 and the upper electrode 120 (¶64); and
a charge generation layer 160 disposed between the lower light-emitting layer 143 and the upper light-emitting layer 185 (¶71),
wherein the charge generation layer has a hole generation layer 160b configured to generate holes, and an electron generation layer 160a configured to generate electrons (¶71; 160b is a p-type charge generation layer and 160a is an n-type charge generation layer),
the hole generation layer 160b has a hole transport material (NPD) (¶80), and
the hole generation layer 160b has an electron-accepting compound (TCNQ4) (¶80), and
an electron-accepting compound ratio is 10 to 50% inclusive (e.g., 15%; ¶80, doped with 15 wt % of a p-type dopant TCNQ4),
wherein the electron-accepting compound ratio is a weight ratio of the electron-accepting compound (TCNQ4) contained in the hole generation layer 160b to a weight of the hole generation layer 160b (¶80).
Park does not expressly disclose the hole generation layer has a smaller refractive index than at least one of a refractive index of the lower light-emitting layer and a refractive index of the upper light-emitting layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Chung discloses in fig. 1 and Table 1, a light-emitting element wherein a hole generation layer 40 has a hole transport material (e.g., NPD) (¶105-106) having a smaller refractive index (e.g., 1.89) than at least one of a refractive index of a light-emitting layer 30 (e.g., 1.94) (see Table 1).
It 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 to employ the teachings of Chung into the hole generation layer and the upper and lower light-emitting layers and arrive at the claimed refractive indexes for these layers in order to provide an electronic device having excellent luminous efficiency by improving light extraction efficiency (¶6).
In re claim 3, Park discloses in figs. 3A-3B, the light-emitting element according to claim 1.
Park discloses in figs. 3A-3B, the light-emitting element wherein the electron-accepting compound contains TCNQ (¶80). Because, Park discloses same material the electron-accepting compound as Applicant’s disclosure (see claim 4 of the Applicant), Park’s electron-accepting compound also has a HOMO level of −8.0 to −7.0 eV inclusive, and the electron-accepting compound has a LUMO level of −5.9 to −5.3 eV inclusive.
“[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). >In In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1258, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the court held that the claimed promoter sequence obtained by sequencing a prior art plasmid that was not previously sequenced was anticipated by the prior art plasmid which necessarily possessed the same DNA sequence as the claimed oligonucleotides. The court stated that “just as the discovery of properties of a known material does not make it novel, the identification and characterization of a prior art material also does not make it novel.”
In re claim 4, Park discloses in figs. 3A-3B, the light-emitting element according to claim 1, wherein the electron-accepting compound contains at least one of TCNQ, TNAP, DCNQI, TCNQ-4F, TNAP-4F, DCTCNQ, TCNTQ, TCNDQ, TNAT, M(dmit)2, OCNAQ, and HAT-CN (¶80).
In re claim 7, Park, as modified by Chung, discloses light-emitting element according to claim 1.
Chung discloses wherein a refractive index of the hole transport material is 0.97 times (see Table 1, 1.89/1.94 = 0.97) of the refractive index of the light-emitting layer, which is merely close to the claimed range of 0.90 times or greater and 0.95 times or smaller of at least one of the refractive index of the lower light-emitting layer and the refractive index of the upper light-emitting layer.
MPEP §2144.05-I states a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%).
Referring to MPEP § 2144.05, “…the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results over the prior art range.” (See also MPEP § 716.02 for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results.)
It 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 to employ the teachings of Chung and arrive at the claimed refractive index ratio for these layers in order to provide an electronic device having excellent luminous efficiency by improving light extraction efficiency (¶6).
In re claim 8, Park, as modified by Chung, discloses the light-emitting element according to claim 1, wherein the hole transport material has a refractive index of 1.70 to 1.90 inclusive (e.g., 1.89; see Table 1 of Chung).
In re claim 9, Park, as modified by Chung, discloses the light-emitting element according to claim 1, wherein the hole transport material is TAPC (see ¶106 of Chung).
In re claim 10, Park discloses in figs. 3A-3B, the light-emitting element according to claim 1.
Park further discloses in figs. 3A-3B, the light-emitting element according to claim 1, wherein the electron generation layer 160a is in contact with the hole generation layer 160b and is composed of a material with ytterbium or lithium added to an electron transport material (¶79).
In re claim 11, Park discloses in figs. 3A-3B, the light-emitting element according to claim 10.
Park further discloses in figs. 3A-3B, the light-emitting element according to claim 10, wherein the electron transport material is an organic electron-transporting material (e.g., an anthracene derivative host material; ¶79).
In re claim 12, Park discloses in figs. 3A-3B, the light-emitting element according to claim 1.
Park further discloses in figs. 3A-3B, the light-emitting element according to claim 1, wherein the light-emitting element includes a hole transport layer 184, and the hole transport layer 184 contains the hole transport material (e.g., NPD material; ¶71, 80).
In re claim 13, Park, as modified by Chung, discloses the light-emitting element according to claim 1.
Park further discloses in figs. 3A-3B, the light-emitting element comprising a cap layer 130 disposed over the upper electrode 120 (¶60).
Park does not expressly disclose wherein the cap layer has a refractive index of 1.5 or smaller.
In the same field of endeavor, Chung discloses in fig. 1, a light-emitting element wherein, a cap layer 60 has a refractive index of greater than or equal to 1.2 (¶94), which overlaps the claimed range of 1.5 or smaller.
It 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 to form the cap layer of Park having a refractive index of 1.5 or smaller to form a microcavity structure and amplify the portion of light corresponding to the objective wavelength range within the visible light wavelength range and emit the same to the outside (¶92-94 of Chung).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, Obviousness of Ranges
Referring to MPEP § 2144.05, “…the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results over the prior art range.” (See also MPEP § 716.02 for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results.)
In re claim 14, Park, as modified by Chung, discloses the light-emitting element according to claim 13 outlined above.
Park discloses in figs. 3A-3B, wherein the cap layer 130 has a thickness of 50 to 500 nm inclusive (e.g., 600 Å; ¶83).
In re claim 21, Park, as modified by Chung, discloses the light-emitting element according to claim 1 outlined above.
Park further discloses in figs. 3A-3B, the wherein the lower light-emitting layer 143 is thinner than the upper light-emitting layer 185 (see fig. 3B; ¶92).
In re claim 22, Park, as modified by Chung, discloses the light-emitting element according to claim 1 outlined above.
Park further discloses in figs. 3A-3B, the light-emitting element according to claim 1, wherein the hole generation layer 160a is disposed closer to the upper electrode 120 than the electron generation layer 160a.
In re claim 24, Park discloses in figs. 3A-3B and 11, a display device comprising the light-emitting element according to claim 1 (fig. 11; ¶120-123).
Claim(s) 1 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over figs. 2A-2B of Park et al. (US 2019/0198788 A1; hereinafter “Park”) in view of Chung et al. (US 20200328368 A1; hereinafter “Chung”).
In re claim 1, Park discloses in figs. 2A-2B, a light-emitting element comprising:
a lower electrode 11 having light reflectivity (¶71, 75);
an upper electrode 12 having light transparency and light reflectivity (¶83);
a lower light-emitting layer 51 and an upper light-emitting layer 52 disposed between the lower electrode 11 and the upper electrode 12 (¶85); and
a charge generation layer 40 disposed between the lower light-emitting layer 51 and the upper light-emitting layer 52 (¶71),
wherein the charge generation layer has a hole generation layer 40b configured to generate holes, and an electron generation layer 40a configured to generate electrons (¶71; 40b is a p-type charge generation layer and 40a is an n-type charge generation layer),
the hole generation layer 40b has a hole transport material (NPD) (¶80), and
the hole generation layer 40b has an electron-accepting compound (TCNQ4) (¶80), and
an electron-accepting compound ratio is 10 to 50% inclusive (e.g., 15%; ¶80, doped with 15 wt % of a p-type dopant TCNQ4),
wherein the electron-accepting compound ratio is a weight ratio of the electron-accepting compound (TCNQ4) contained in the hole generation layer 40b to a weight of the hole generation layer 40b (¶80).
Park does not expressly disclose the hole generation layer has a smaller refractive index than at least one of a refractive index of the lower light-emitting layer and a refractive index of the upper light-emitting layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Chung discloses in fig. 1 and Table 1, a light-emitting element wherein a hole generation layer 40 has a hole transport material (e.g., NPD) (¶105-106) having a smaller refractive index (e.g., 1.89) than at least one of a refractive index of a light-emitting layer 30 (e.g., 1.94) (see Table 1).
It 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 to employ the teachings of Chung into the hole generation layer and the upper and lower light-emitting layers and arrive at the claimed refractive indexes for these layers in order to provide an electronic device having excellent luminous efficiency by improving light extraction efficiency (¶6).
In re claim 23, Park, as modified by Chung, discloses the light-emitting element according to claim 1 outlined above.
Park further discloses in figs. 2A-2B, wherein the refractive index of the lower light-emitting layer 51 and the refractive index of the upper light-emitting layer 52 are equal (¶85; “In the first and second light-emitting layers 51 and 52, the same phosphorescent hosts ph are doped with the same phosphorescent dopants pd so as to have the same content. The first and second light-emitting layers 51 and 52 have the same thickness, namely 400 Å”. Therefore, the refractive index of the lower light-emitting layer 51 and the refractive index of the upper light-emitting layer 52 are equal).
Claim(s) 2, 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Chung, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of García et al. (US 20240132468 A1; hereinafter “García”).
In re claim 2, Park, as modified by Chung, discloses the light-emitting element according to claim 1.
Park does not expressly disclose wherein the electron-accepting compound ratio is 20% or greater.
In the same field of endeavor, García discloses in fig. 3, a light-emitting element wherein, the electron-accepting compound ratio in a hole injection layer (e.g., F4TCNQ) selected from 1 to 20% (¶174), which overlaps the claimed range of 20% or greater.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, Obviousness of Ranges
Referring to MPEP § 2144.05, “…the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results over the prior art range.” (See also MPEP § 716.02 for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results.)
It 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 to form the electron-accepting compound ratio of Park as 20% or greater in order to increase electrical conductivity and improves hole injection efficiency.
In re claim 5, Park, as modified by Chung, discloses the light-emitting element according to claim 4.
Park, as modified by Chung, does not expressly disclose wherein the electron-accepting compound contains a fluorine group.
In the same field of endeavor, García discloses in fig. 3, wherein the electron-accepting compound contains a fluorine group (e.g., F4TCNQ) (¶174).
It 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 to employ the teachings of García into the hole generation layer of Park, as modified by Chung, as García discloses electron-accepting compound containing a fluorine group is a known dopant in the hole generation layer.
MPEP § 2144.07 states the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious); Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See MPEP §2144.07.
A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc ., 480 F.3d 1348, 82 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
In re claim 6, Park, as modified by Chung, discloses the light-emitting element according to claim 1.
Park, as modified by Chung, does not expressly disclose wherein the electron-accepting compound is TCNQ-4F or TNAP-4F.
In the same field of endeavor, García discloses in fig. 3, wherein the electron-accepting compound is TCNQ-4F or TNAP-4F (e.g., F4TCNQ) (¶174).
It 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 to employ the teachings of García into the hole generation layer of Park, as modified by Chung, as García discloses electron-accepting compound containing a fluorine group is a known dopant in the hole generation layer (¶174 of García).
MPEP § 2144.07 states the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious); Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See MPEP §2144.07.
A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc ., 480 F.3d 1348, 82 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Chung, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Nishimura et al. (US 20070024168 A1; hereinafter “Nishimura”) (Nishimura et al. is listed in 12/27/2023 IDS).
In re claim 19, Park, as modified by Chung, discloses the light-emitting element according to claim 1.
Park, as modified by Chung, does not expressly disclose wherein a first visual angle at which light of a selected wavelength emitted from the lower light-emitting layer exhibits a maximum resonance effect, and a second visual angle at which light of the selected wavelength emitted from the upper light-emitting layer exhibits a maximum resonance effect are different.
In the same field of endeavor, Nishimura discloses a light-emitting element wherein a first visual angle at which light of a selected wavelength emitted from the lower light-emitting layer exhibits a maximum resonance effect, and a second visual angle at which light of the selected wavelength emitted from the upper light-emitting layer exhibits a maximum resonance effect are different (see Table 5; ¶86, 202-203).
It 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 to employ the teachings of Nishimura into the light-emitting layers of Park, as modified by Chung, to provide an organic EL element and an organic EL display device in which the cavity can be adjusted and which have a high light emitting efficiency; can lower the driving voltage; and can improve the reliability and to provide an organic EL element whose visible angle dependency can be lowered (¶18-19 of Nishimura).
In re claim 20, Park, as modified by Chung, discloses the light-emitting element according to claim 19, wherein the first visual angle is 0 degrees (see Table 5; ¶86, 202-203 of Nishimura).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NILUFA RAHIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8926. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm 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, Yara J. Green can be reached at (571) 270-3035. 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.
/NILUFA RAHIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893