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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kristal US 2021/0159437.
PNG
media_image1.png
328
531
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kristal US 2021/0159437
Regarding claim 1, Kristal in Fig. 2 and [0032]-[0035] discloses a display device, comprising:
a first electrode 2 [0032];
a second electrode 4 facing the first electrode 2; and
a light-emitting layer 3 provided between the first electrode 2 and the second electrode 4,
wherein the light-emitting layer 3 includes
a first light-emitting layer including first quantum dots 32 [0033] and being provided on a side of the first electrode 2,
a second light-emitting layer including second quantum dots 31 [0033] and being provided on a side of the second electrode 4, and a flattened layer 33 [0034] (i.e. intermediate layer, Fig. 2 above shows a stack of layers 31, 33, 32) provided between the first light-emitting layer 32 and the second light-emitting layer 31.
Regarding claim 3, Kristal in Fig. 2 and [0032]-[0035] discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein a surface of the flattened layer 33 (i.e. intermediate layer) on a side of the second light-emitting layer 31 is flat.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kristal US 2021/0159437.
Regarding claim 2, Kristal in Fig. 2 and [0032]-[0035] discloses the display device according to claim 1. Kristal in [0043]-[0046] teaches a film thickness of the intermediate layer 33 but does not teach wherein a film thickness of the flattened layer is equal to or greater than an average particle diameter of the first quantum dots.
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).
Claim(s) 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kristal as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mei et al. CN 112151689 A.
Regarding claim 4, Kristal in Fig. 2 and [0032]-[0035] discloses the display device according to claim 1 but does not expressly disclose wherein the second quantum dots in the second light-emitting layer 31 include a polar solvent-dispersed ligand, and the flattened layer 33 (i.e. intermediate layer) is formed of a non-polar solvent-dispersed material.
However, in analogous art, Mei et al. teaches a quantum dot light emitting device including materials that are known in the art to be used in quantum dot light emitting devices. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try any of the materials of claim 4 as the second quantum dot and the flattened layer, as the court has held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is prima facie obvious. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 5, Kristal in Fig. 2 and [0032]-[0035] discloses the display device according to claim 1 and the flattened layer 33 (i.e. intermediate layer) is formed of a non-polar solvent-dispersed material [0047] but does not expressly disclose wherein the second quantum dots include a non-polar solvent-dispersed ligand, and the flattened layer is formed of a polar solvent-dispersed material.
However, in analogous art, Mei et al. teaches a quantum dot light emitting device including materials that are known in the art to be used in quantum dot light emitting devices. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try any of the materials of claim 5 as the second quantum dot and the flattened layer, as the court has held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is prima facie obvious. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 6, Kristal in Fig. 2 and [0032]-[0035] discloses the display device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a hole transport layer 6 provided between the first electrode 2 and the first light-emitting layer 32, and
an electron transport layer 5 provided between the second electrode 4 and the second light-emitting layer 31.
Kristal does not expressly disclose
wherein the relationship of expressions (1) below is satisfied,
a1 ≥ b1 and e1 ≥ f1 (1)
where a1 is a difference obtained by subtracting a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) energy level of the first light-emitting layer from a LUMO energy level of the hole transport layer,
b1 is a difference obtained by subtracting a LUMO energy level of the second light-emitting layer from a LUMO energy level of the flattened layer,
e1 is a difference obtained by subtracting a LUMO energy level of the electron transport layer from the LUMO energy level of the second light-emitting layer, and
f1 is a value obtained by subtracting the LUMO energy level of the flattened layer from the LUMO energy level of the first light-emitting layer.
However, Mei et al. in Figs. 1-12 and related text teaches a quantum dot light emitting device including a light emitting layer 3 comprising sub-functional layers 31, 32, 33. Each sub-functional layer comprises a ligand and the surface of the ligand corresponding to each sub-functional layer can be a gradient change; so that the energy levels of each sub-function layer is changed in gradient and each energy level of each sub-function layer is matched with the energy level of the adjacent hole transport and electron transport layer, so as to improve the carrier transmission and balance, thereby improving the device efficiency.
This demonstrates that to achieve improved carrier transmission and balance in the display device, from which the energy levels depend, the energy levels would be considered result effective variables.
Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize that it would be obvious to adjust the LUMO energy levels of the functional layers, (i.e. hole transport layer, electron transport layer and the light emitting sub-functional layers) in order to “improve the carrier transmission and balance and improve the device performance” thereof and optimize “a1 ≥ b1 and e1 ≥ f1” as “result effective variables”, and arrives at the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 7, Kristal in Fig. 2 and [0032]-[0035] discloses the display device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a hole transport layer 6 provided between the first electrode 2 and the first light-emitting layer 32, and
an electron transport layer 5 provided between the second electrode 4 and the second light-emitting layer 31.
Kristal does not expressly disclose
wherein the relationship of expressions (2) below is satisfied,
c1 ≥ d1 and g1 ≥ h1 (1)
where c1 is a valued obtained by subtracting a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) energy level of the electron transport layer from a HOMO energy level of the second light-emitting layer,
d1 is a value obtained by subtracting a HOMO energy level of the flattened layer from a HOMO energy level of the first light-emitting layer,
g1 is a value obtained by subtracting a HOMO energy level of the first light-emitting layer from the HOMO energy level of the hole transport layer, and
h1 is a value obtained by subtracting the HOMO energy level of the second light emitting layer from the HOMO energy level of the flattened layer.
However, Mei et al. in Figs. 1-12 and related text teaches a quantum dot light emitting device including a light emitting layer 3 comprising sub-functional layers 31, 32, 33. Each sub-functional layer comprises a ligand and the surface of the ligand corresponding to each sub-functional layer can be a gradient change; so that the energy levels of each sub-function layer is changed in gradient and each energy level of each sub-function layer is matched with the energy level of the adjacent hole transport and electron transport layer, so as to improve the carrier transmission and balance, thereby improving the device efficiency.
This demonstrates that to achieve improved carrier transmission and balance in the display device, from which the energy levels depend, the energy levels would be considered result effective variables.
Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize that it would be obvious to adjust the HOMO energy levels of the functional layers, (i.e. hole transport layer, electron transport layer and the light emitting sub-functional layers) in order to “improve the carrier transmission and balance and improve the device performance” thereof and optimize “c1 ≥ d1 and g1 ≥ h1” as “result effective variables”, and arrives at the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 8, Kristal in Fig. 2 and [0032]-[0035] discloses the display device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a hole transport layer 6 provided between the first electrode 2 and the first light-emitting layer 32, and
an electron transport layer 5 provided between the second electrode 4 and the second light-emitting layer 31.
Kristal does not expressly disclose
an electron transport layer provided between the first electrode and the first light-emitting layer, and
a hole transport layer provided between the second electrode and the second light-emitting layer,
wherein the relationship of expressions (3) below is satisfied,
a2 ≥ b2 and e2 ≥ f2 (3)
where a2 is a difference obtained by subtracting a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) energy level of the second light-emitting layer from a LUMO energy level of the hole transport layer,
b2 is a difference obtained by subtracting a LUMO energy level of the first light-emitting layer from a LUMO energy level of the flattened layer,
e2 is a difference obtained by subtracting a LUMO energy level of the electron transport layer from the LUMO energy level of the first light-emitting layer, and
f2 is a value obtained by subtracting the LUMO energy level of the flattened layer from the LUMO energy level of the second light-emitting layer.
However, Mei et al. in Figs. 1-12 and related text teaches a quantum dot light emitting device. More specifically, Fig. 6 teaches an inverted quantum dot light emitting device including an electron transport layer 2 provided between a first electrode 5 and a first light-emitting layer 33, and
a hole transport layer 4 provided between the second electrode 1 and a second light-emitting layer 31. The light-emitting layer 3 comprising sub-functional layers 31, 32, 33. Each sub-functional layer comprises a ligand and the surface of the ligand corresponding to each sub-functional layer can be a gradient change; so that the energy levels of each sub-function layer is changed in gradient and each energy level of each sub-function layer is matched with the energy level of the adjacent hole transport and electron transport layer, so as to improve the carrier transmission and balance, thereby improving the device efficiency.
This demonstrates that to achieve improved carrier transmission and balance in the display device, from which the energy levels depend, the energy levels would be considered result effective variables.
Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize that it would be obvious to adjust the LUMO energy levels of the functional layers, (i.e. hole transport layer, electron transport layer and the light emitting sub-functional layers) in order to “improve the carrier transmission and balance and improve the device performance” thereof and optimize “a2 ≥ b2 and e2 ≥ f2” as “result effective variables”, and arrives at the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 9, Kristal in Fig. 2 and [0032]-[0035] discloses the display device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a hole transport layer 6 provided between the first electrode 2 and the first light-emitting layer 32, and
an electron transport layer 5 provided between the second electrode 4 and the second light-emitting layer 31.
Kristal does not expressly disclose
an electron transport layer provided between the first electrode and the first light-emitting layer, and
a hole transport layer provided between the second electrode and the second light-emitting layer,
wherein the relationship of expressions (4) below is satisfied,
c2 ≥ d2 and g2 ≥ h2 (4)
where c2 is a valued obtained by subtracting a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) energy level of the electron transport layer from a HOMO energy level of the first light-emitting layer,
d2 is a value obtained by subtracting a HOMO energy level of the flattened layer from a HOMO energy level of the second light-emitting layer,
g2 is a value obtained by subtracting the HOMO energy level of the second light-emitting layer from a HOMO energy level of the hole transport layer, and
h2 is a value obtained by subtracting the HOMO energy level of the first light emitting layer from the HOMO energy level of the flattened layer.
However, Mei et al. in Figs. 1-12 and related text teaches a quantum dot light emitting device. More specifically, Fig. 8 teaches an inverted quantum dot light emitting device including an electron transport layer 2 provided between a first electrode 5 and a first light-emitting layer 33, and
a hole transport layer 4 provided between the second electrode 1 and a second light-emitting layer 31. The light-emitting layer 3 comprising sub-functional layers 31, 32, 33. Each sub-functional layer comprises a ligand and the surface of the ligand corresponding to each sub-functional layer can be a gradient change; so that the energy levels of each sub-function layer is changed in gradient and each energy level of each sub-function layer is matched with the energy level of the adjacent hole transport and electron transport layer, so as to improve the carrier transmission and balance, thereby improving the device efficiency.
This demonstrates that to achieve improved carrier transmission and balance in the display device, from which the energy levels depend, the energy levels would be considered result effective variables.
Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize that it would be obvious to adjust the HOMO energy levels of the functional layers, (i.e. hole transport layer, electron transport layer and the light emitting sub-functional layers) in order to “improve the carrier transmission and balance and improve the device performance” thereof and optimize “c2 ≥ d2 and g2 ≥ h2” as “result effective variables”, and arrives at the recited limitation.
Claim(s) 10-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. US 11,329,242 in view of Kristal US 2021/0159437.
PNG
media_image2.png
482
407
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Moon et al. US 11,329,242
Regarding claim 10, Moon et al. in Fig. 7 and col. 9, line 7-col. 11, line 7 discloses a display device, comprising:
a first light-emitting element 230 (A1) having a light emission central wavelength at a first wavelength λ1; and
a second light-emitting element A2 having a light emission central wavelength at a second wavelength λ2,
wherein the first light-emitting element A1 includes
a first first electrode 220,
a first second electrode 240 facing the first first electrode 220, and
a first light-emitting layer 231 provided between the first first electrode 220 and the first second electrode 240,
the second light-emitting element 230 (A2) includes
a second first electrode 220,
a second second electrode 240 facing the second first electrode 220, and
a second light-emitting layer 231 provided between the second first electrode 220 and the second second electrode 240, and
Moon et al. does not expressly disclose the first light-emitting layer includes
a first first light-emitting layer including first first quantum dots and being provided on a side of the first first electrode,
a first second light-emitting layer including first second quantum dots and being provided on a side of the first second electrode, and
a first flattened layer provided between the first first light-emitting layer and the first second light-emitting layer,
the second light-emitting layer includes a second first light-emitting layer including second first quantum dots and being provided on a side of the second first electrode,
a second second light-emitting layer including second second quantum dots and being provided on a side of the second second electrode, and
a second flattened layer provided between the second first light-emitting layer and the second second light-emitting layer.
Kristal in Fig. 2 and [0032]-[0035] teaches a quantum dot electroluminescent display panel comprising a plurality of pixel units arranged in an array, wherein each of the pixel units comprise a quantum dot electroluminescent element including a first electrode 2;
a second electrode 4 facing the first electrode 2; and
a light-emitting layer 3 provided between the first electrode 2 and the second electrode 4,
wherein the light-emitting layer 3 includes
a first light-emitting layer including first quantum dots 32 [0033] and being provided on a side of the first electrode 2,
a second light-emitting layer including second quantum dots 31 and being provided on a side of the second electrode 4, and a flattened layer 33 (i.e. intermediate layer, Fig. 2 above shows a stack of layers 31, 33, 32) provided between the first light-emitting layer 32 and the second light-emitting layer 31.
Kristal further teaches in [0051] the composite light-emitting layer includes at least two quantum dot light-emitting layers which are stacked, and an intermediate layer arranged between every two adjacent ones of the at least two quantum dot light-emitting layers; the intermediate layer is configured to transport holes and block electrons. The quantum dot electroluminescent element disclosed by the embodiment of the present disclosure is equivalent to dividing a quantum dot light-emitting layer into two or more quantum dot light-emitting layers, and inserting an intermediate layer capable of transporting holes and blocking electrons between the adjacent quantum dot light-emitting layers. In this way, at low voltage, the intermediate layer can block electrons and prevent electrons from escaping from the quantum dot light-emitting layer close to the cathode layer, so that electrons and holes mainly emit light in the quantum dot light-emitting layer close to the cathode layer; when the voltage increases, some electrons escape from the quantum dot light-emitting layer close to the cathode layer, but the escaped electrons can recombine with holes in the adjacent quantum dot light-emitting layer to emit light, thus alleviating the problem that the light-emitting efficiency of quantum dot electroluminescent elements will decrease when the voltage increases.
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 Kristal in the light-emitting display device of Moon et al. for the purpose of improving the light-emitting efficiency.
Regarding claim 11, Moon et al. in view of Kristal teaches the display device according to claim 10. Moon et al. in Fig. 7 and col. 9, lines 7-20 teaches wherein the first flattened layer and the second flattened layer (i.e. organic material layer 230) are common.
Regarding claim 12, Moon et al. in view of Kristal teaches the display device according to claim 10. Moon et al. in Fig. 7 and col. 9, lines 7-20 teaches wherein the second flattened layer (i.e. organic material layer 230) extends between the first first electrode and the first first light-emitting layer.
Regarding claim 14, Moon et al. in view of Kristal teaches the display device according to claim 10. Moon et al. in Fig. 7 and col. 9, lines 7-20 teaches wherein the second flattened layer (i.e. organic material layer 230) extends between the first second electrode and the first second light-emitting layer.
Claim(s) 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. in view of Kristal as applied to claims 12 and 14 above, and further in view of Mei et al. CN 112151689 A.
Regarding claim 13, Moon et al. in view of Kristal teaches the display device according to claim 12.
Kristal in Fig. 2 and [0032]-[0035] discloses the display device according to claim 12, further comprising:
a hole transport layer 6 provided between the first electrode 2 and the first light-emitting layer 32, and
an electron transport layer 5 provided between the second electrode 4 and the second light-emitting layer 31.
Kristal does not expressly disclose
an electron transport layer provided between the first first electrode and the second flattened layer, and
a hole transport layer provided between the first second electrode and the first second light-emitting layer,
wherein the relationship of expressions (5) below is satisfied,
s > t (5)
where s is a difference obtained by subtracting a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) energy level of the electron transport layer from a LUMO energy level of the second flattened layer,
t is a difference obtained by subtracting the LUMO energy level of the
electron transport layer from a LUMO energy level of the first first light-emitting layer.
However, Mei et al. in Figs. 1-12 and related text teaches a quantum dot light emitting device. More specifically, Fig. 6 teaches an inverted quantum dot light emitting device including an electron transport layer 2 provided between a first electrode 5 and a first light-emitting layer 33, and
a hole transport layer 4 provided between the second electrode 1 and a second light-emitting layer 31. The light-emitting layer 3 comprising sub-functional layers 31, 32, 33. Each sub-functional layer comprises a ligand and the surface of the ligand corresponding to each sub-functional layer can be a gradient change; so that the energy levels of each sub-function layer is changed in gradient and each energy level of each sub-function layer is matched with the energy level of the adjacent hole transport and electron transport layer, so as to improve the carrier transmission and balance, thereby improving the device efficiency.
This demonstrates that to achieve improved carrier transmission and balance in the display device, from which the energy levels depend, the energy levels would be considered result effective variables.
Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize that it would be obvious to adjust the LUMO energy levels of the functional layers, (i.e. hole transport layer, electron transport layer and the light emitting sub-functional layers) in order to “improve the carrier transmission and balance and improve the device performance” thereof and optimize “s > t” as “result effective variables”, and arrives at the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 15, Moon et al. in view of Kristal teaches the display device according to claim 14.
Kristal in Fig. 2 and [0032]-[0035] discloses the display device according to claim 14, further comprising:
a hole transport layer 6 provided between the first electrode 2 and the flattened layer 33, and
an electron transport layer 5 provided between the second electrode 4 and the second light-emitting layer 31.
Kristal does not expressly disclose
an electron transport layer provided between the first first electrode and the second flattened layer, and
a hole transport layer provided between the first second electrode and the first second light-emitting layer,
wherein a relationship of expression (6) below is satisfied,
x > y > z (6)
where x is a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) energy level of the hole transport layer from a HOMO energy level of the first light-emitting layer,
y is a HOMO energy level of the second flattened layer,
z is a HOMO energy level of the first second light-emitting layer.
However, Mei et al. in Figs. 1-12 and related text teaches a quantum dot light emitting device. More specifically, Fig. 8 teaches an inverted quantum dot light emitting device including an electron transport layer 2 provided between a first electrode 5 and a first light-emitting layer 33, and
a hole transport layer 4 provided between the second electrode 1 and a second light-emitting layer 31. The light-emitting layer 3 comprising sub-functional layers 31, 32, 33. Each sub-functional layer comprises a ligand and the surface of the ligand corresponding to each sub-functional layer can be a gradient change; so that the energy levels of each sub-function layer is changed in gradient and each energy level of each sub-function layer is matched with the energy level of the adjacent hole transport and electron transport layer, so as to improve the carrier transmission and balance, thereby improving the device efficiency.
This demonstrates that to achieve improved carrier transmission and balance in the display device, from which the energy levels depend, the energy levels would be considered result effective variables.
Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize that it would be obvious to adjust the HOMO energy levels of the functional layers, (i.e. hole transport layer, electron transport layer and the light emitting sub-functional layers) in order to “improve the carrier transmission and balance and improve the device performance” thereof and optimize “c2 ≥ d2 and g2 ≥ h2” as “result effective variables”, and arrives at the recited limitation.
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