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 .
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 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.
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(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al., CN 116981281 A (see attached English machine translation) in view of Lee, KR 20210111941 A (see attached English machine translation).
Liu teaches:
A light emitting element, comprising (see fig. 1 annotated below):
PNG
media_image1.png
510
329
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first electrode (e.g. annotated E1);
a first light emitting unit (e.g. annotated LE1) disposed on the first electrode and including a first light emitting layer (EML-1); and
a second light emitting unit (e.g. annotated LE2) disposed on the first light emitting unit and including a second light emitting layer (EML-2), wherein
the second light emitting unit includes a second hole transport region (HTL-2) disposed between the first light emitting unit (LE1) and the second light emitting layer (EML-2), and
a refractive index n1 of a portion of the second hole transport region (e.g. less than 1.8 at page 12)… See Liu at English machine translation pages 6-18.
Liu does not expressly teach:
a refractive index n1 of a portion of the second hole transport region satisfies a following Equation (1):
n2 – 0.05 ≤ n1 ≤ 2.4
wherein, in Equation (1), n1 is the refractive index of the portion of the second hole transport region, and n2 is a refractive index of the second light emitting layer.
In an analogous art, Lee teaches:
a refractive index n1 of a portion of the second hole transport region satisfies a following Equation (1):
n2 – 0.05 ≤ n1 ≤ 2.4
wherein, in Equation (1), n1 is the refractive index of the portion of the second hole transport region, and n2 is a refractive index of the second light emitting layer (e.g. See disclosure at page 12: “In an embodiment, the first refractive index of the hole transport region HTR may be 1.7 or more and 2.2 or less, or 1.7 or more and 2.0 or less. The second refractive index of the light emitting layer EML may be 1.2 or more and 1.7 or less, or 1.2 or more and 1.6 or less.” Lee discloses n1 is 1.7-2.2 and n2 is 1.2-1.6 which meets the requirements of Equation (1).)
Regarding claim 2:
Liu further teaches:
2. The light emitting element of claim 1, wherein the second hole transport region comprises a second hole transport layer (HTL-2) and a second auxiliary layer (e.g. hole injection layer, HIL; See page 16 disclosing “When the hole-transporting region is composed of a hole-injecting layer and a hole-transporting layer (not provided with an electron-blocking layer),…the hole transport layer is located between the hole injection layer and the light emitting layer,…” The HIL is interpreted as the second auxiliary layer.)
3. The light emitting element of claim 2, wherein the portion of the second hole transport region includes the second hole transport layer (e.g. See page 16 disclosing “When the hole-transporting region is composed of a hole-injecting layer and a hole-transporting layer (not provided with an electron-blocking layer),…the hole transport layer is located between the hole injection layer and the light emitting layer,…”)
4. The light emitting element of claim 3, wherein the second hole transport layer has a thickness of about 100 Å or more (e.g. HTL is 5-200 nm at page 12)
5. The light emitting element of claim 2, wherein the portion of the second hole transport region includes the second auxiliary layer. (e.g. See page 16 disclosing “When the hole-transporting region is composed of a hole-injecting layer and a hole-transporting layer (not provided with an electron-blocking layer),…the hole transport layer is located between the hole injection layer and the light emitting layer,…” The HIL is interpreted as the second auxiliary layer.)
6. The light emitting element of claim 5, wherein the second auxiliary layer has a thickness of about 50 Å or more (e.g. See HIL is 5-30 nm at page 11)
Regarding claims 4 and 6:
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, Obviousness of Ranges
Referring to MPEP § 2144.05, “…the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results over the prior art range.” (See also MPEP § 716.02 for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results.)
7. The light emitting element of claim 1, wherein the first light emitting layer and the second light emitting layer emit red light (See pages 2 and 7)
Regarding claims 8-9:
Liu does not expressly teach:
wherein the first distance from an upper surface of the first electrode to a lower surface of the first light emitting layer is about 1000 Å or less;
wherein the first distance is in a range of about 300 Å to about 500 Å.
However, Liu recognizes the first distance is a result effective variable in the disclosure at page 12:
“In general, the closer the light emitting unit is closer to the first electrode, the closer the distance between the light emitting layer and the first electrode is, the stronger the SPP quenching effect generated by the first electrode to the light emitting unit is…”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to form “wherein the first distance from an upper surface of the first electrode to a lower surface of the first light emitting layer is about 1000 Å or less; wherein the first distance is in a range of about 300 Å to about 500 Å”, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP § 2144.05, Obviousness of Ranges and Optimization of Ranges. (See also MPEP § 716.02 for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results.)
10. The light emitting element of claim 1, wherein the light emitting element further comprises: a first hole transport region (HTL-1) disposed between the first electrode (E1) and the first light emitting layer (EML-1); and a charge generation layer (CGL) disposed between the first light emitting layer and the second hole transport region (HTL-2) fig. 1.
Regarding claim 11:
Liu and Lee teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above.
Liu further teaches the added limitation:
11. A display device, comprising: a substrate; a transistor disposed on the substrate; and a light emitting element electrically connected to the transistor (e.g. See display and TFT at page 25.)
Regarding claims 12-20:
Liu and Lee teach the limitations as applied to claims 2-10 above, respectively.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Liu with the teachings of Lee because “The light emitting device OEL-1 according to an exemplary embodiment may include a relatively high refractive hole transport region HTR and a low refractive index emission layer EML to exhibit improved light emitting efficiency characteristics…It is possible to exhibit high light extraction efficiency by minimizing the occurrence of interference and allowing constructive interference to occur.” See Lee at page 12.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Bang US 10403695 B2. Bang teaches a tandem LED in fig. 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michele Fan whose telephone number is 571-270-7401. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 7:30 am to 4 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, Jeff Natalini, can be reached on (571) 272-2266. 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.
/Michele Fan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
17 July 2026
Prosecution Insights