Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 09/02/206 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
According to the Applicant’s argument, the Applicants states that it appears that the Office action appears to equate the CBP layer of Omary’s invention with a charge generation layer. On the contrary, as indicated in the Office Action of 06/26/2026, the Office’s position is that Omary fails to disclose a first and second charge generation layer.
To address the deficiency of Omary, the Office relied on the teachings of Inoue which states that “substances having a high hole-transport property are known to be used for material for a charge-generation layer, and wherein the material can be any of various material to include CBP.”
The Applicant then argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have looked to Inoue regarding charge generation layers when considering the CBP layers disclosed in Omary because Omary does not disclose stacked emissive units that require charge generation and injection between adjacent units.
This argument is not persuasive because Omary does not have to explicitly disclose that the CBP layer is a charge generation layer or function as a charge generation layer or capable of generating charge. It should be noted that Omary’s focus on certain characteristics of the CBP layer does not take away from the fact that the CBP layer has other characteristics. Inoue clearly discloses that CBP could be the material of various layers to include a charge generation layer. It should be noted that although Omary fails to specifically disclose charge generating, a person having ordinary skills in the art would at least based on the disclosure of Inoue have the CBP layer, found it obvious or reasonable to have the CBP layer in Omary’s invention be a charge generation layer –wherein charge generation layer improve charge balance, recombination efficiency and/or luminance in a light emitting device.
The Applicant further argues that Inoue teaches away from the Office Action’s interpretation because Inoue consistently teaches that the CBP is used in combination with an acceptor substance as part of the charge generation layer. Thus, Inoue does not teach or suggest that an undoped CBP layer alone constitutes a charge generation layer. On the contrary, Inoue teaches that additional charge-generating components are required to achieve the desired charge generation function.
This argument is also not persuasive because Inoue’s disclosure of an acceptor substance along with the CBP layer does not mean that the CBP by itself is not a layer carrying out/capable of carrying out charge generation function. It is noted that the Applicant has not provided any evidence to indicate that the CBP does not have charge generation functions.
The rejection of records is deemed reasonable and would be maintained.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2 and 9-10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Omary [US PPGUB 20110260145] in view of Inoue et al. [US PGPUB 20120277427] (hereinafter Inoue).
Regarding claim 1, Omary teaches a device comprising:
a first electrode (ITO, Fig. 3);
a second electrode (Mg:Ag, Fig. 3); and
a hybrid emissive stack disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (Fig. 3), the stack comprising:
a first emissive unit (lower BCzVBi:CBP, Fig. 3) that comprises a first fluorescent blue organic emissive unit (Para 48);
a first spacer (CBP 4 nm, Para 48, Fig. 3) that is disposed over the first emissive unit (Fig. 3);
a second emissive unit (Pt(ptp)2:CBP, Fig. 3) that comprises a second phosphorescent yellow organic emissive unit (Para 48) that is disposed over the first spacer (Fig. 3);
a second spacer (CBP 6 nm, Para 48, Fig. 3) that is disposed over the second emissive unit (Fig. 3); and
a third emissive unit (upper BCzVBi:CBP, Fig. 3) that comprises a third fluorescent blue organic emissive unit (Para 48) that is disposed over the second spacer (Fig. 3).
Omary does not specifically disclose that the first and second spacers are charge generation layer.
Referring to the invention of Inoue, Inoue teaches substance having a high hole-transport property are known to be used for material for a charge-generation layer, and wherein the material can be any of various material to include CBP (Para 106).
In view of such teaching by Inoue, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the CBP spacer layers in Omary’s invention further be a functional layer as taught by Inoue in order improve the efficiency of the device such as improving charge balance, recombination efficiency, and/or luminance of the device.
Regarding claim 2, Omary teaches a device wherein the first emissive unit is disposed over the first electrode (Fig. 3), and
wherein the first electrode is an anode (Para 48, wherein Mg:Ag is the cathode of the device).
Regarding claim 9, Omary teaches a device wherein the device is at least one type selected from the group consisting of: flat panel displays, computer monitors, medical monitors, televisions, billboards, lights for interior or exterior illumination and/or signaling, color tunable or color temperature tunable lighting sources, heads up displays, fully transparent displays, flexible displays, laser printers, telephones, cell phones, personal digital assistants (PDAs), laptop computers, digital cameras, camcorders, viewfinders, micro-displays, vehicles, a large area wall, theater or stadium screen, and a sign (Para 4).
Regarding claim 10, Omary teaches the limitation of claim 1 upon which it depends.
Omary does not specifically disclose that the device further comprising a color filter.
Referring to the invention of Inoue, Inoue teaches implementing light emitting devices in other devices, and wherein in an instance, the device is a full color display may be fabricated by a combination with color filters (Para 184).
In view of such teaching by Inoue, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the CBP spacer layers in Omary’s invention further be a functional layer as taught by Inoue at least based on the rationale of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143.I.A)..
Claim 3 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Omary in view of Inoue and further in view of Weaver et al. [US PGPUB 20130320837] (hereinafter Inoue).
Regarding claim 3, Omary teaches a device wherein at least one selected from the group consisting of:
the first emissive unit that comprises the first fluorescent blue organic emissive unit, and the third emissive unit that comprises the third fluorescent blue organic emissive unit is configured to emit blue light (Fig. 3, Para 48).
Omary in view of Inoue do not specifically disclose that the emitted blue lights are in a different color region.
Referring to the invention of Weaver, Weaver teaches using multiple blue emissive units in a device instead of a single blue emissive unit, wherein the blue emissive units emit blue light in a different color region (Para 14/15).
In view of such teaching by Weaver, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified device of Omary comprising the teachings of Weaver to improve the life expectancy of the device (Para 14/15)
Claim 4 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Omary in view of Inoue and further in view of Osaka et al. [US PGPUB 20120061714] (hereinafter Osaka).
Regarding claim 4, the modified invention of Omary discloses the limitation of claim 1 upon which it depends.
The modified invention does not specifically disclose wherein at least one selected from the group consisting of: the first charge generation layer and the second charge generation layer is comprised of at least one selected from the group consisting of: an n-doped layer and a p-doped layer for injection of at least one of electrons and holes, and a material configured to enable injection of at least one of electrons and holes.
Referring to the invention of Osaka, Osaka discloses a first charge generation layer and a second charge generation layer is comprised of at least one selected from the group consisting of: an n-doped layer and a p-doped layer for injection of at least one of electrons and holes, and a material configured to enable injection of at least one of electrons and holes (Para 220).
In view of such teaching by Osaka, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified invention of Omary comprise the teachings of Osaka at least based on the rationale of relying on teachings, suggestions, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention (MPEP 2143.I.G).
Claim 5 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Omary in view of Inoue and further in view of Chuman et al. [US PGPUB 20040217989] (hereinafter Chuman).
Regarding claim 5, the modified invention of Omary discloses the limitation of claim 1 upon which it depends.
The modified invention does not specifically disclose wherein the second electrode is disposed over the third emissive unit, and wherein the second electrode is an anode.
Referring to the invention of Chuman, Chuman teaches reversing to the position of the anode and the cathode of a device (Para 48).
In view of such teaching by Chuman, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified invention of Omary comprise the teaching of Chuman based on the desired emitting surface and/or at least based on the rationale of relying on teachings, suggestions, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention (MPEP 2143.I.G).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Omary in view of Inoue and further in view of Krause et al. [US PGPUB 20110297922] (hereinafter Krause).
Regarding claim 6, the modified invention of Omary discloses the limitation of claim 1 upon which it depends.
The modified invention does not specifically disclose a device further comprising an electron blocking layer disposed on a side of the third emissive unit.
Referring to the invention of Krause, Krause teaches a device wherein electron blocking layer disposed on a side on a side of a emissive unit closest to an electrode (anode) of the device, such that the electron blocking layer is between the emissive unit and the electrode (Table 2).
In view of such teaching by Krause, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified invention of Omary comprise the teachings of Krause in order to improve luminance efficiency.
Regarding claim 7, the modified invention of Omary discloses the limitation of claim 1 upon which it depends.
The modified invention does not specifically disclose a device further comprising a hole blocking layer disposed on a side of the third emissive unit.
Referring to the invention of Krause, Krause teaches a device wherein hole blocking layer disposed on a side on a side of an emissive unit closest to an electrode (cathode) of the device, such that the electron blocking layer is between the emissive unit and the electrode (Table 2).
In view of such teaching by Krause, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified invention of Omary comprise the teachings of Krause in order to improve luminance efficiency.
Regarding claim 8, the modified invention of Omary discloses the limitation of claim 1 upon which it depends.
The modified invention does not specifically disclose a device further comprising:
Referring to the invention of Krause, Krause teaches a device wherein electron blocking layer disposed on a side on a side of a emissive unit closest to an electrode (anode) of the device, such that the electron blocking layer is between the emissive unit and the electrode, and
wherein hole blocking layer disposed on a side on a side of an emissive unit closest to an electrode (cathode) of the device, such that the electron blocking layer is between the emissive unit and the electrode (Table 2).
In view of such teaching by Krause, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified invention of Omary comprise the teachings of Krause in order to improve luminance efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 11-20 are allowed because all prior arts of record and related prior arts not of record either singularly or in combination fail to anticipate or render obvious a device comprising the claimed 3 organic fluorescent blue emissive units and 2 organic phosphorescent or fluorescent green emissive units with charge generation layers therein between each of the emissive layer (as claimed in claim 11), in combination with the rest of claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAIL A MUSE whose telephone number is (571)272-1470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 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, 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.
/ISMAIL A MUSE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights