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 § 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 Seo et al. (US20120237669A1, hereinafter Seo).
Regarding claim 1, Seo discloses an organic electroluminescent device, comprising:
an anode (Fig. 2 first electrode 11),
at least one light emitting unit on the anode (Fig. 2 light emitting layer 26 on first electrode 11), and
a cathode on a side of the light emitting unit away from the anode (Fig. 2 second electrode 29 on side of light emitting layer 26 away from first electrode 11),
wherein the light emitting unit comprises:
a light emitting layer (Fig. 2 the layer comprised of composite material layer 24 and dopant material layer 25) and
a light emitting auxiliary layer (Fig. 2 host material layer 23), wherein the light emitting auxiliary layer is between the anode and the light emitting layer (Fig. 2 host material layer 23 is between first electrode 11 and the layer comprised of composite material layer 24 and dopant material layer 25) and, wherein a material of the light emitting layer and a material of the light emitting auxiliary layer are different, wherein the light emitting layer comprises a first host material and a first guest material (Par. 61 teaches that in order to make “composite material layer 24…,the host material and the dopant material are mixed”), and wherein the light emitting auxiliary layer comprises the first host material (Par. 60 teaches that “host material layer 23 contain[s] only the host material” and therefore a material of the light emitting layer and a material of host material layer 23 are different from the materials of the layer comprised of composite material layer 24 and dopant material layer 25).
Regarding claim 11, Seo discloses the organic electroluminescent device according to claim 1,
wherein the light emitting unit further comprises a hole transport layer between the anode and the light emitting auxiliary layer (Fig. 2 hole-transport layer 22 is located between light emitting layer 26 and first electrode 11), and wherein the organic electroluminescent device satisfies:
IHOMO (hole transport layer) - HOMO (first host material)| <= 0.3eV,
wherein, HOMO (hole transport layer) is a highest occupied molecular orbital energy level of a material of the hole transport layer, and wherein HOMO (first host material) is a highest occupied molecular orbital energy level of the first host material (Seo par. 66 teaches that “holes can be injected readily from the hole-transport layer 22 to the light-emitting layer 26….[when] the absolute value of the difference between the HOMO level of the host material and that of the material for the hole-transport layer is less than or equal to 0.2 eV, preferably less than or equal to 0.1 eV”).
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (US20120237669A1) in view of Hamada et al. (US20170222171A1, hereinafter Hamada).
Regarding claim 2, Seo teaches the organic electroluminescent device according to claim 1,
wherein the light emitting unit comprises a light emitting layer comprising the first guest material, the light emitting auxiliary layer comprises a light emitting auxiliary layer comprising the first host material (Seo par. 61 teaches that in order to make “composite material layer 24…the host material and the dopant material are mixed”), and wherein a projection of the light-emitting layer on the anode at least partially overlaps with a projection of the light emitting auxiliary layer on the anode (Seo fig. 2 the projection of light emitting layer 26 on first electrode 11 overlaps with the projection of host material layer 23 on the first electrode 11).
Seo does not appear to teach
wherein the light emitting unit comprises a green light emitting unit
Hamada teaches
wherein the light emitting unit comprises a green light emitting unit (Fig. 2 green light-emitting unit G).
Being in analogous arts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seo with the teachings of Hamada because as Seo is silent as to the specific wavelengths emitted by their light-emitting element, this would motivate a person of ordinary skill to seek out a reference such as Hamada who do explicitly teach the use of a light emitting element, such as the one taught by Seo, integrated into a larger electroluminescent device which emits a variety of colors such as green.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Seo and Hamada teaches the organic electroluminescent device according to claim 2.
The combination of Seo and Hamada does not appear to teach
wherein the first host material comprises a hole-type host material.
Hamada teaches
wherein the first host material comprises a hole-type host material (Par. 21 “the first light-emitting material layer 30 may include at least one P-type host material”).
Being in analogous arts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Seo with the teachings of Hamada because as Seo is silent as to the specific materials of their host material, this would motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art to seek out references such as Hamada who do explicitly teach specific materials of their host material.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Seo and Hamada teaches the organic electroluminescent device according to claim 3,
wherein the green light emitting auxiliary layer further comprises the first guest material (Seo fig. 6 teaches the use of an auxiliary dopant material layer 23a formed below because Seo par. 80 teaches that having the “auxiliary dopant mixed in the light-emitting layer 26 forms a level having a hole-acceptance property…to facilitate hole injection from the hole-transport layer 22 to the light-emitting layer 26.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Seo and Hamada in order to facilitate hole injection from the hole transport layer, Seo par. 80).
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (US20120237669A1) in view of Mou (US20200067008A1).
Regarding claim 12, Seo discloses the organic electroluminescent device according to claim 11, wherein the light emitting unit further comprises:
a hole injection layer between the anode and the hole transport layer (Fig. 2 hole injection layer 21 is between hole transport layer 22 and first electrode 11);
an electron transport layer on a side away from the anode (Fig. 2 electron transport layer 27 on side away from first electrode 11); and
an electron injection layer on a side of the electron transport layer away from the anode (Fig. 2 electron injection layer 28 on a side of electron transport layer 27 away from first electrode 11).
Seo does not appear to teach
a hole blocking layer on a side of the light emitting layer away from the anode;
Mou teaches
a hole blocking layer on a side of the light emitting layer away from the anode (Fig. 5 hole blocking layer 700);
Being in analogous arts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seo with the teachings of Mou because “the hole blocking layer 700 may restrict carriers in the light-emitting layer so as to further improve the uniformity of the exciton concentration in different positions of the light-emitting sublayer and improve the uniformity of the light emission of the light-emitting sublayer” (Mou par. 59).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo in view of Tsukamoto et al. (US20180323396A1, hereinafter Tsukamoto).
Regarding claim 29, Seo teaches a display substrate, comprising:
an organic electroluminescent device on a substrate, the organic electroluminescent device comprising the organic electroluminescent device according to claim 1 (Seo fig. 2 has substrate 10 and then the device as claimed and mapped above in claim 1).
Seo does not appear to teach
a pixel circuit for controlling the light emission of the organic electroluminescent device.
Tsukamoto teaches
a pixel circuit for controlling the light emission of the organic electroluminescent device (Par. 56 “On the substrate 1, a circuit including a drive element such as a TFT may be formed”).
Being in analogous arts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seo with the teachings of Tsukamoto because introducing drive elements into the substrate allows the operation of the light emitting element disposed on it.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10, 13-14, 16, 19, and 21-23 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5 and its dependent claims. The closest prior art (US20120237669A1, US20170222171A1, US20180323396A1) teaches the organic electroluminescent device according to claim 3
However, the closest prior art does not teach in combination with the other claimed elements
wherein the green light emitting layer further comprises a sensitizer, and wherein the green light emitting auxiliary layer further comprises the sensitizer.
Additionally, the closest prior art does not teach the above in combination with the further limitations of dependent claims.
Examiner notes that while there are embodiments within the prior art, see Tsukamoto fig. 9, that teach an organic electroluminescent device with an auxiliary buffer layer 36 comprising a host material layer within the light emitting element, Tsukamoto explicitly teaches in par. 417 that the buffer layer contains no fluorescent material and the sensitizer should be located in another layer. Therefore, examiner's search of the prior art did not find an embodiment nor any motivation to combine embodiments such that the green light emitting layer further comprises a sensitizer, and wherein the green light emitting auxiliary layer further comprises the sensitizer in addition with the other limitations of the independent claim.
Regarding claim 13, the closest prior art (US20120237669A1, US20170222171A1, US20180323396A1, US20200266375A1) teaches the organic electroluminescent device according to claim 12, for the electron transport layer and the hole blocking layer of a same light emitting unit, satisfying:
|LUMO (electron transport layer)| > |LUMO (hole blocking layer)|,
wherein, LUMO (electron transport layer) is a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital energy level of a material of the electron transport layer, and LUMO (hole blocking layer) is a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital energy level of a material of the hole blocking layer.
Examiner notes that while there are embodiments within the prior art, see Li fig. 6 and par. 74, that teach a similar electroluminescent device, Li’s explicitly teaches in par. 74 and fig. 6 wherein the absolute value of the LUMO of the electron transport layer is less than the absolute value of the LUMO of the hole blocking layer. Therefore, examiner's search of the prior art did not find an embodiment nor any motivation to combine embodiments such that |LUMO (electron transport layer)| > |LUMO (hole blocking layer)|in addition with the other limitations of the independent claim.
Regarding claim 14 and its dependent claims. The closest prior art (US20120237669A1, US20170222171A1, US20180323396A1) teaches the organic electroluminescent device according to claim 12, wherein the light emitting layer further comprises
a blue light emitting layer (Hamada fig. 2 light emitting unit B) and a
red light emitting layer (Hamada fig. 2 light emitting unit B);
the light emitting auxiliary layer comprises a blue light emitting auxiliary layer and a red light emitting auxiliary layer (The combination of Seo and Hamada teaches the use of an auxiliary light emitting layer for a device with multiple colors, see above rejection of claim 2), and wherein a projection of the blue light emitting layer on the anode at least partially overlaps with a projection of the blue light emitting auxiliary layer on the anode (Hamada fig. 2 light emitting layer 30 overlap with its auxiliary layer 313 in a projection onto first electrode 20), and wherein a projection of the red light emitting layer on the anode at least partially overlaps with a projection of the red light emitting auxiliary layer on the anode (Hamada fig. 2 light emitting layer 40 overlap with its auxiliary layer 313 in a projection onto first electrode 20).
However, the closest prior art does not teach in combination with the other claimed elements
wherein the light emitting layer further comprises
a blue light emitting layer and
a red light emitting layer, wherein the blue light emitting layer, the red light emitting layer and the green light emitting layer are spaced apart from each other, wherein the blue light emitting auxiliary layer, the red light emitting auxiliary layer and the green light emitting auxiliary layer are spaced apart from each other,
or
wherein the light emitting layer further comprises
a blue light emitting layer and
a red light emitting layer, wherein at least two of a projection of the blue light emitting layer on the anode, a projection of the red light emitting layer on the anode and a projection of the green light emitting layer on the anode partially overlap with each other.
Additionally, the closest prior art does not teach the above in combination with the further limitations of dependent claims.
Examiner notes that while there are embodiments within the prior art, see above combination of Seo and Hamada fig. 2, that teach a first and second light emitting material layers 30 disposed adjacent to one another, examiner's search of the prior art did not find an embodiment nor any motivation to combine embodiments such that the blue light emitting layer, the red light emitting layer and the green light emitting layer are spaced apart from each other and the blue light emitting auxiliary layer, the red light emitting auxiliary layer and the green light emitting auxiliary layer are spaced apart from each other or wherein at least two of a projection of the blue light emitting layer on the anode, a projection of the red light emitting layer on the anode and a projection of the green light emitting layer on the anode partially overlap with each other in addition with the other limitations of the independent claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLE LEON LINDSEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4028. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Christine Kim can be reached at (571)272-8458. 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.
/COLE LEON LINDSEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2812 /CHRISTINE S. KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights