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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 09/25/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. US 2016/0276601.
PNG
media_image1.png
317
370
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Choi et al. in Fig. 1 and [0050]-[0098] disclose a light-emitting diode OEL [0050] comprising:
a pixel electrode EL1 [0051];
a first functional layer HTR [0052]-[0061] on the pixel electrode EL1;
an emission layer EML [0062]-[0071] on the first functional layer HTR;
a second functional layer ETR [0072]-[0087] on the emission layer EML; and
an opposite electrode EL2 [0088]-[0091] on the second functional layer ETR,
wherein the second functional layer ETR [0072]-[0087] comprises:
an auxiliary electron transport layer ETL [0073]-[0076] on the emission layer and comprising a first deposition material [0074];
a mixed layer METL1, METL2 [0073]-[0085] on the auxiliary electron transport layer ETL and comprising a first electron transport compound (e.g. second deposition material) and a second electron transport compound (e.g. third deposition material) mixed at a ratio [0077]-[0084]; and
an electron transport layer EIL [0085]-[0087] on the mixed layer METL1, METL2 and comprising the second electron transport compound [0086] (e.g. third deposition material) and a mixture material of a hole transport material and insulating organo metal salt [0086]-[0087]. Choi et al. further disclose a hole blocking layer in the ETL including the first deposition material [0087].
Choi et al. do not expressly disclose the mixed layer METL1, METL2 comprising the first deposition material and the electron transport layer EIL comprising the second deposition material.
Although Choi et al. do not disclose the mixed layer METL1, METL2 comprising the first deposition material and the electron transport layer EIL comprising the second deposition material, the material differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless obvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 2, Choi et al. in Fig. 1 and [0050]-[0098] teach the light-emitting diode OEL [0050] of claim 1, wherein a lowest unoccupied molecular orbit (LUMO) energy level of the mixed layer METL1, METL2 is lower than a LUMO energy level of the auxiliary electron transport layer ETL [0075] but do not expressly teach a lowest unoccupied molecular orbit (LUMO) energy level of the mixed layer METL1, METL2 is higher than a LUMO energy level of the electron transport layer EIL.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Regarding claim 3, Choi et al. in Fig. 1 and [0050]-[0098] teach the light-emitting diode OEL [0050] of claim 2, but do not expressly teach wherein the LUMO energy level of the auxiliary electron transport layer ETL [0075] is lower than the LUMO energy level of the emission layer EML.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Regarding claim 4, Choi et al. in Fig. 1 and [0050]-[0098] teach the light-emitting diode OEL [0050] of claim 2, but do not expressly teach wherein a highest occupied molecular orbit (HOMO) energy level of the mixed layer METL1, METL2 is lower than a HOMO energy level of the emission layer EML and a HOMO energy level of the electron transport layer EIL.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Regarding claim 5, Choi et al. in Fig. 1 and [0050]-[0098] teach the light-emitting diode OEL [0050] of claim 1, but do not expressly teach wherein a thickness of the mixed layer METL1, METL2 [077] is less than a thickness of the electron transport layer EIL [0086].
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Regarding claim 6, Choi et al. in Fig. 1 and [0050]-[0098] teach the light-emitting diode OEL [0050] of claim 1, but do not expressly teach wherein a thickness of the mixed layer [0077] is about 20 angstrom (Å) to about 70 Å.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Regarding claim 7, Choi et al. in Fig. 1 and [0050]-[0098] teach the light-emitting diode OEL [0050] of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the mixed layer METL1, METL2 [0077] is equal to or greater than a thickness of the auxiliary electron transport layer ETL [0075].
PNG
media_image2.png
402
500
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Choi et al. in Fig. 6 and [0050]-[0172] disclose a display device 10 [0101] comprising:
a substrate BS [0116]-[0118];
a thin film transistor TF1 [0108] on the substrate BS;
a pixel electrode EL1 [0127] electrically connected to the thin film transistor [0124];
a first functional layer HTR [0052]-[0061] on the pixel electrode EL1;
an emission layer EML [0062]-[0071] on the first functional layer HTR;
a second functional layer ETR [0072]-[0087] on the emission layer EML; and
an opposite electrode EL2 [0088]-[0091] on the second functional layer ETR,
wherein the second functional layer ETR [0072]-[0087] comprises:
an auxiliary electron transport layer ETL [0073]-[0076] on the emission layer and comprising a first deposition material [0074];
a mixed layer METL1, METL2 [0073]-[0085] on the auxiliary electron transport layer ETL and comprising a first electron transport compound (e.g. second deposition material) and a second electron transport compound (e.g. third deposition material) mixed at a ratio [0077]-[0084]; and
an electron transport layer EIL [0085]-[0087] on the mixed layer METL1, METL2 and comprising the second electron transport compound [0086] (e.g. third deposition material) and a mixture material of a hole transport material and insulating organo metal salt [0086]-[0087]. Choi et al. further disclose a hole blocking layer in the ETL including the first deposition material [0087].
Choi et al. do not expressly disclose the mixed layer METL1, METL2 comprising the first deposition material and the electron transport layer EIL comprising the second deposition material.
Although Choi et al. do not disclose the mixed layer METL1, METL2 comprising the first deposition material and the electron transport layer EIL comprising the second deposition material, the material differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless obvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 9, Choi et al. in Fig. 6 and [0050]-[0172] teach the display device 10 [0101] of claim 8, wherein a lowest unoccupied molecular orbit (LUMO) energy level of the mixed layer METL1, METL2 is lower than a LUMO energy level of the auxiliary electron transport layer ETL [0075] but do not expressly teach a lowest unoccupied molecular orbit (LUMO) energy level of the mixed layer METL1, METL2 is higher than a LUMO energy level of the electron transport layer EIL.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Regarding claim 10, Choi et al. in Fig. 6 and [0050]-[0172] teach the display device 10 [0101] of claim 9, but do not expressly teach wherein the LUMO energy level of the auxiliary electron transport layer ETL [0075] is lower than the LUMO energy level of the emission layer EML.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Regarding claim 11, Choi et al. in Fig. 6 and [0050]-[0172] teach the display device 10 [0101] of claim 9, but do not expressly teach wherein a highest occupied molecular orbit (HOMO) energy level of the mixed layer METL1, METL2 is lower than a HOMO energy level of the emission layer EML and a HOMO energy level of the electron transport layer EIL.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Regarding claim 12, Choi et al. in Fig. 6 and [0050]-[0172] teach the display device 10 [0101] of claim 8, but do not expressly teach wherein a thickness of the mixed layer METL1, METL2 [077] is less than a thickness of the electron transport layer EIL [0086].
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Regarding claim 13, Choi et al. in Fig. 6 and [0050]-[0172] teach the display device 10 [0101] of claim 8, but do not expressly teach wherein a thickness of the mixed layer METL1, METL2 [0077] is about 20 angstrom (Å) to about 70 Å.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONYA D MCCALL-SHEPARD whose telephone number is (571)272-9801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Julio J. Maldonado can be reached at (571)272-1864. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Sonya McCall-Shepard/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
