Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/13/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ma et al CN 101447555 B. Ma et al will be referenced to as Ma henceforth.
Regarding Claim 1,
Ma teaches:
“A light emitting device, comprising a first electrode (anode 3, [0013], FIG. 1), a second electrode (cathode 6, [0013], FIG. 1), a plurality of light emitting units disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (light emitting layer 4.3, [0047], FIG. 1), and a charge separation generating unit disposed between adjacent light emitting units (electron transport layer 4.4, n-type, organic semiconductor layer 5.1, p-type organic semiconductor layer 5.2, hole transport layer 4.2, [0047-0048], FIG. 1, FIG. 3: 4-m and 5-j are stacked on each other and form a continuous stack. Therefore, there is a stack within the continuous stack comprising, from bottom top, 4.4, 5.1, 5.2, and 4.2. in a direction from a first electrode to a second electrode.);
the charge separation generating unit comprises a first charge transport subunit (4.4), a first charge generation subunit (n-type organic semiconductor layer 5.1, [0020], FIG. 3), a second charge generation subunit (p-type organic semiconductor layer 5.2, [0020], FIG. 3), and a second charge transport subunit disposed in sequence along a direction from the first electrode to the second electrode (hole transport layer 4.2, [0047], FIG. 2);
the first charge transport subunit, the first charge generation subunit, the second charge generation subunit, and the second charge transport subunit enable the charge separation generating unit to satisfy that a transmittance is greater than 50% when a wavelength of visible light is in a range of 380 nm to 480 nm ([0043]: the undoped organic semiconductor heterojunction improves the visible light transmittance to between 75% to 95%. It is known in the art that the wavelength range of visible light is from approximately 380 nm to 700 nm.);
enable the charge separation generating unit to satisfy that a transmittance is greater than 70% when a wavelength of visible light is in a range of 480 nm to 580 nm ([0043]: the undoped organic semiconductor heterojunction improves the visible light transmittance to between 75% to 95%. It is known in the art that the wavelength range of visible light is from approximately 380 nm to 700 nm.); and
enable the charge separation generating unit to satisfy that a transmittance is greater than 75% when a wavelength of visible light is in a range of 580 nm to 680 nm ([0043]: the undoped organic semiconductor heterojunction improves the visible light transmittance to between 75% to 95%. It is known in the art that the wavelength range of visible light is from approximately 380 nm to 700 nm.).”
Regarding Claim 11,
Ma teaches:
“The light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the first charge transport subunit comprises at least one layer of first electron transport layer (4.4 is an electron transport layer.);
or, a first hole block layer and at least one layer of first electron transport layer disposed in sequence along the direction from the first electrode to the second electrode”
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 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Fung et al, “Tandem Organic Light-Emitting Diodes”. Fung et al will be referenced to as Fung henceforth.
Regarding Claim 2,
Ma teaches:
“The light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the first charge generation subunit satisfies that a transmittance is greater than 85% when a wavelength of visible light is in the range of 380 nm to 480 nm ([0043]: the undoped organic semiconductor heterojunction improves the visible light transmittance to between 75% to 95%. It is known in the art that the wavelength range of visible light is from approximately 380 nm to 700 nm.);”
Ma doesn’t substantially teach:
“the first charge generation subunit satisfies that a transmittance is greater than 95% when a wavelength of visible light is in the range of 480 nm to 580 nm;
the first charge generation subunit satisfies that a transmittance is greater than 96% when a wavelength of visible light is in the range of 580 nm to 680 nm; or
the second charge generation subunit satisfies that a transmittance is greater than 85% when a wavelength of visible light is in the range of 380 nm to 480 nm;
the second charge generation subunit satisfies that a transmittance is greater than 95% when a wavelength of visible light is in the range of 480 nm to 580 nm;
the second charge generation subunit satisfies that a transmittance is greater than 96% when a wavelength of visible light is in the range of 580 nm to 680 nm.”
However, Fung teaches:
“the first charge generation subunit satisfies that a transmittance is greater than 95% when a wavelength of visible light is in the range of 480 nm to 580 nm (Fung: FIG. 23: the absorption of HAT-CN from 380 nm to 800 nm is nearly 0. In other words, the transmittance of HAT-CN is nearly 100%.);
the first charge generation subunit satisfies that a transmittance is greater than 96% when a wavelength of visible light is in the range of 580 nm to 680 nm (Fung: pg 10398 col: 1, FIG. 23: the absorption of HAT-CN from 380 nm to 800 nm is nearly 0. In other words, the transmittance of HAT-CN is nearly 100%.); or
the second charge generation subunit satisfies that a transmittance is greater than 85% when a wavelength of visible light is in the range of 380 nm to 480 nm;
the second charge generation subunit satisfies that a transmittance is greater than 95% when a wavelength of visible light is in the range of 480 nm to 580 nm;
the second charge generation subunit satisfies that a transmittance is greater than 96% when a wavelength of visible light is in the range of 580 nm to 680 nm.”
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to recognize that the device of Ma is modifiable in view of Fung by replacing the n-type organic semiconductor material of Ma for HAT-CN as in Fung.
This is because HAT-CN has an optical transparency of nearly 100% and is therefore an ideal material for changer generation in tandem OLEDs. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a transparency of nearly 100% is beneficial because a greater transparency leads to a more energy efficient device and therefore a more cost-effective device.
Regarding Claim 4,
Ma/Fung teaches:
“The light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the first charge generation subunit and the second charge generation subunit, which are stacked, serve as one layer of charge generation unit (Ma: charge generation layer unit 5-j, [0014], FIG. 3: 5.1 and 5.2 are components of one charge generation unit layer 5-j.);
the charge generation unit satisfies that a transmittance is greater than 75% when a wavelength of visible light is in the range of 380 nm to 480 nm (Ma: [0043]: the undoped organic semiconductor heterojunction improves the visible light transmittance to between 75% to 95%. It is known in the art that the wavelength range of visible light is from approximately 380 nm to 700 nm. The heterojunction is 5-j, and because 5-j improves the transmittance of visible light of the device to between 75% to 95%, the transmittance of 5-j must also be from 75% to 95%);
the charge generation unit satisfies that a transmittance is greater than 93% when a wavelength of visible light is in the range of 480 nm to 580 nm (Ma: [0043]: the undoped organic semiconductor heterojunction improves the visible light transmittance to between 75% to 95%. It is known in the art that the wavelength range of visible light is from approximately 380 nm to 700 nm. The heterojunction is 5-j, and because 5-j improves the transmittance of visible light of the device to between 75% to 95%, the transmittance of 5-j must also be from 75% to 95%);
the charge generation unit satisfies that a transmittance is greater than 95% when a wavelength of visible light is in the range of 580 nm to 680 nm (Fung: FIG. 23: the absorption of HAT-CN from 380 nm to 800 nm is nearly 0. In other words, the transmittance of HAT-CN is nearly 100%.). ”
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Shin et al US 20230189541 A1. Shin et al will be referenced to as Shin henceforth.
Regarding Claim 23,
Ma teaches:
“The light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the light emitting unit comprises an emitting layer (light emitting layer 4.3, [0047], FIG. 1)”
Ma doesn’t substantially teach:
“and a sub-functional layer;
the sub-functional layer comprises at least one of a hole injection layer, an electron injection layer, a first hole transport layer, a second electron transport layer, a second hole block layer, and a first electron block layer.”
However, Shin teaches:
“and a sub-functional layer (Shin: EBL 265, [0094], [0260], FIG. 5);
the sub-functional layer comprises at least one of a hole injection layer, an electron injection layer, a first hole transport layer, a second electron transport layer, a second hole block layer, and a first electron block layer (Shin: 265 is an electron blocking layer.).”
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to recognize that the device of Ma is modifiable in view of Shin by incorporating the electron blocking layer adjacent to an emitting layer of Shin into Ma.
This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that placing an electron blocking layer adjacent to an emitting layer brings big advantages to emitting efficiency and the lifespan of a tandem OLED device.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Kuang US 20190229157 A1. Kuang et al will be referenced to as Kuang henceforth.
Regarding Claim 24,
Ma teaches:
“comprising a light emitting device according to claim 1”
Ma doesn’t substantially teach:
“A display panel,”
However, Kuang teaches:
“A display panel, (Kuang: [0003])”
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to recognize that the device of Ma is modifiable in view of Kuang by incorporating the device of Ma into the display of Kuang.
This is because Kuang teaches that a tandem WOLED should be included in an OLED display because tandem WOLEDs don’t require a masking process and can achieve high resolutions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9, 12-19, 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 5,
Ma fails to explicitly teach :
“wherein the first charge generation subunit comprises a first host material and a first guest material doped in the first host material;
the second charge generation subunit comprises a second host material and a second guest material doped in the second host material;
a doping concentration of the first guest material is between 0.4% and 2.0%;
a doping concentration of the second guest material is between 0.5% and 1.5% ” In view of the rest of the limitations of claim 1.
Ma fails to explicitly teach the above limitation because it is not obvious to combine the invention of Ma with other art which teaches the above limitation.
This is because Ma teaches an undoped charge generating layer and cites benefits, including a transmittance of 75%-95% of the device. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to dope the charge generation layer.
The Examiner did not find prior art which one of ordinary skill in the art would use alone or would find obvious to combine with the invention of Ma to reach all of the limitations of the claim.
Regarding Claims 6-9, 17-19, and 21 these claims depend on claim 5 and are objectionable for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 12,
Ma fails to explicitly teach :
“a difference between a Lowest Unoccupied Molecular Orbital (LUMO) energy level of one first electron transport layer close to the N-type doped charge generation layer and a Lowest Unoccupied Molecular Orbital (LUMO) energy level of the N-type doped charge generation layer is between -0.2 eV and 0.2 eV.” In view of the rest of the limitations of claim 11.
Ma fails to explicitly teach the above limitation because the limitation cannot be found in the prior art of record.
This is because Ma does not specify the LUMO energy level of the electron transport layer. Therefore, the LUMO energy difference between the electron transport layer, and the N-type doped charge generation layer cannot be determined.
The Examiner did not find prior art which one of ordinary skill in the art would use alone or would find obvious to combine with the invention of Ma to reach all of the limitations of the claim.
Regarding Claims 13-14, these claims depend on claim 12 and are objectionable for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 15,
Ma fails to explicitly teach :
“wherein a third host material of the first electron transport layer comprises a nitrogen-containing heterocyclic derivative or a pyridine derivative;
a third guest material doped in the third host material comprises 8-hydroxyquinoline lithium or 8-hydroxyquinoline aluminum analog” In view of the rest of the limitations of claim 11.
Ma fails to explicitly teach the above limitation because the limitation cannot be found in the prior art of record.
This is because the electron transport layers of Ma are made of aluminum or Alq3. Neither of these materials are doped. The Examiner did find art, “Improving the efficiency of organic light emitting devices by using co-host electron transport layer”, by Choy et al, in which an electron transport layer contains a nitrogen containing heterocyclic derivative and 8-hydroxyquinoline analog, but because the doping ratio was 50%, the Examiner did not believe that it was reasonable to consider the 8-hydroxyquinoline analog to be a guest material due to the high doping percentage and because Choy et al refers to the electron transport layer as a cohost layer rather than a host layer containing a guest material.
The Examiner did not find prior art which one of ordinary skill in the art would use alone or would find obvious to combine with the invention of Ma to reach all of the limitations of the claim.
Regarding Claim 16, this claim depends on claim 15 and is objectionable for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE XAVIER RAMIREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2715. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM to 6:00 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, William Partridge can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
/ALEXANDRE X RAMIREZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights