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 (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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 8, 2024 was filed 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 § 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 1-6, 8-10, 12, 13, 15-17, 19, 20, 22, 24-25, 27, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (U.S. Pub. 2005/0162073), hereinafter Suzuki, in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pub. 2006/0121313), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding Claim 1, Suzuki teaches a device (‘OLED’; Fig. 1, Paragraph [0014]), comprising:
-a substrate ((1); Fig. 1, Paragraph [0014]);
-a first electrode ((2) ‘as lower electrodes’; Fig. 1, Paragraphs [0014] and [0025]) on the substrate (1), the first electrode (2) including an amorphous metal (Paragraph [0019]);
-a first transport layer (‘hole transport layer’ of (3) when structured as variant 5, hereinafter (3-1); Paragraph [0026] and [0031]) on the first electrode (2);
-an emission layer (‘organic light-emitting layer of (3) when structured as variant 5 hereinafter (3-2); Paragraph [0026] and [0031]) on the first transport layer (3-1);
-a second transport layer (‘electron transport layer’, hereinafter (3-3), noted as above the light-emitting layer; Paragraph [0005]); and
-a second electrode ((4); Fig. 1, Paragraph [0033]) on the second transport layer (3-3) – necessarily as being above the full structure of (3).
Examiner notes that Suzuki discloses the presence of a second transport layer and that it is on the light-emitting layer, but does not clarify the structure. Therefore, an incorporation of the teachings of Lee is provided.
Lee teaches a device (‘OLED’; Fig. 1, Paragraph [0027]), comprising:
-a second transport layer (‘electron transport layer’ (160); Fig. 1, Paragraph [0035]) on the emission layer ((140); Fig. 1, Paragraph [0031]); and
-a second electrode ((180); Fig. 1, Paragraph [0037]) on the second transport layer (160).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee into the device of Suzuki to ensure that the second transport layer is on the emission layer; and the second electrode is on the second transport layer. This would be due to the fact that doing so would produce the expected result of incorporating a suggested structure to the organic layer (Suzuki, (3) comprising (3-1), (3-2), and (3-3), Paragraph [0026] – compare to Lee, (A), Paragraph [0036])
For the following claim rejections dependent on Claim 1, all references are directed towards Suzuki unless otherwise specified. For example, (4) refers to (Suzuki, (4)), while (Lee, (120)) refers to element (120) of Lee.
Regarding Claim 2, Suzuki as modified by Lee teaches a device (‘OLED’; Fig. 1, Paragraph [0014]) of Claim 1, wherein:
-the emission layer (3-2) is an organic emission layer (Paragraph [0026]).
Regarding Claim 3, Suzuki as modified by Lee teaches a device (‘OLED’; Fig. 1, Paragraph [0014]) of Claim 1, wherein:
-the substrate (1) is a glass substrate (Paragraph [0023]).
Regarding Claim 4, Suzuki as modified by Lee teaches a device (‘OLED’; Fig. 1, Paragraph [0014]) of Claim 1, wherein:
-the first electrode (2) is an anode (Paragraph [0025]),
-the first transport layer (3-1) is a hole transport layer (Paragraph [0026]),
-the second transport layer (3-3) is an electron transport layer (Paragraph [006] and Lee, Paragraph [0035]), and
-the second electrode (4) is a cathode (Paragraph [0033]).
Regarding Claim 5, Suzuki as modified by Lee teaches a device (‘OLED’; Fig. 1, Paragraph [0014]) of Claim 4, wherein:
-anode (2) is reflective (‘reflective films’ – Paragraphs [0014] and [0025]), and the cathode (4) is transparent (Paragraph [0033]).
Regarding Claim 6, Suzuki as modified by Lee teaches a device (‘OLED’; Fig. 1, Paragraph [0014]) of Claim 4, wherein:
-the anode (2) has a first work function (‘high work function’ – Paragraph [0025]), and the cathode (4) has a second work function that is smaller than the first work function (‘low work function’ – Paragraph [0033]).
Regarding Claim 8, Suzuki as modified by Lee teaches a device (‘OLED’; Fig. 1, Paragraph [0014]) of Claim 1, wherein:
-the first electrode (2) is a cathode (alternative as provided in Paragraph [0025]),
-the first transport layer (3-1) is an electron transport layer,
-the second transport layer (3-3) is a hole transport layer, (As taught in Lee, the hole transport layer should be on the anode, Paragraph [0030], and the electron transport layer should be on the cathode, Paragraph [0037]. Thus in the case of switched polarity (inverted cathode and anodes), the transport layers would similarly be switched) and
-the second electrode (4) is an anode (alternative as provided in Paragraph [0033]).
Regarding Claim 9, Suzuki as modified by Lee teaches a device (‘OLED’; Fig. 1, Paragraph [0014]) of Claim 8, wherein:
-cathode (2) is reflective (‘reflective films’ – Paragraphs [0014] and [0025]), and the anode (4) is transparent (Paragraph [0033]).
Regarding Claim 10, Suzuki as modified by Lee teaches a device (‘OLED’; Fig. 1, Paragraph [0014]) of Claim 8, wherein:
-the cathode (2) has a first work function (‘low work function’ as a cathode – Paragraph [0025]), and the anode (4) has a second work function that is greater than the first work function (e.g. a ‘high work function’ as an anode, same as for in the case of Claim 6 – Paragraphs [0025] and [0033]).
Regarding Claim 12, Suzuki as modified by Lee teaches a device (‘OLED’; Fig. 1, Paragraph [0014]) of Claim 8, further comprising:
-a capping layer (a layer of an alloy of lithium and fluoride, i.e. LiF; Paragraph [0025]) between the first electrode (2) and the first transport layer (3-1).
Regarding Claim 13, Suzuki as modified by Lee teaches a device (‘OLED’; Fig. 1, Paragraph [0014]) of Claim 12, wherein:
-the capping layer includes a material selected from a group of materials including lithium fluoride (LiF), amorphous calcium aluminate electride, and amorphous zinc silicate (LiF, Paragraph [0025]).
Regarding Claim 15, Suzuki as modified by Lee teaches a device (‘OLED’; Fig. 1, Paragraph [0014]) of Claim 1, further comprising:
-a first injection layer (‘hole injection layer’ of (3), Paragraph [0031] / Lee, (120); Fig. 1, Paragraph [0030]) on the first electrode (2),
-the first transport layer ((3-1) / Lee, (130); Fig. 1, Paragraph [0030]) being on the first injection layer (‘hole injection layer’ / Lee, (120)); and
-a second injection layer (Lee, (170); Fig. 1, Paragraph [0035]) on the second transport layer ((3-3) / Lee, (160)), the second electrode (4) being on the second injection layer (170).
Regarding Claim 16, Suzuki as modified by Lee teaches a device (‘OLED’; Fig. 1, Paragraph [0014]) of Claim 15, wherein:
-the first injection layer (Lee, (120)) and the first transport layer (Lee, (130)) are made of the same material (Lee, e.g. ‘a polymer material’; Paragraph [0030], and
-the second injection layer (Lee, (170)) and the second transport layer (Lee, (160)) are made of the same material (Lee, e.g. ‘PBD’; Paragraph [0035]).
Regarding Claim 17, Suzuki as initially modified by Lee teaches a device (‘OLED’; Fig. 1, Paragraph [0014]) of Claim 1, wherein:
-the first electrode (2) has a first thickness (e.g. 150 nm; Paragraph [0024])
But does not explicitly further teach:
and the second electrode (4) has a second thickness that is smaller than the first thickness (thickness of (2)).
Lee further teaches:
the second electrode (180) has a second thickness (e.g. 10nm; Paragraph [0039])
The limitation “that is smaller than the first thickness” is necessarily fulfilled by its incorporation. (10 nm < 150 nm)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the further teachings of Lee into the device of Suzuki as modified by Lee such that the second electrode has a second thickness that is smaller than the first thickness. This would be due to the fact that doing so would ensure light transmittance while forming a layer with uniformity (Lee, Paragraph [0039]).
Regarding Claim 19, Suzuki teaches a method (of forming ‘OLED’; Fig. 1, Paragraph [0014]), comprising:
-forming a first electrode ((2) ‘as lower electrodes’; Fig. 1, Paragraphs [0014] and [0025]) on a substrate ((1); Fig. 1, Paragraph [0014]);
-the first electrode (2) including an amorphous metal (Paragraph [0019]);
-forming a first transport layer (‘hole transport layer’ of (3) when structured as variant 5, hereinafter (3-1); Paragraph [0026] and [0031]) on the first electrode (2);
-forming an emission layer (‘organic light-emitting layer of (3) when structured as variant 5 hereinafter (3-2); Paragraph [0026] and [0031]) on the first transport layer (3-1);
-forming a second transport layer (‘electron transport layer’, hereinafter (3-3), noted as above the light-emitting layer; Paragraph [0005]); and
-forming a second electrode ((4); Fig. 1, Paragraph [0033]) on the second transport layer (3-3) – necessarily as being above the full structure of (3).
Examiner notes that Suzuki discloses the presence of a second transport layer and that it is on the light-emitting layer, but does not clarify the structure nor formation. Therefore, an incorporation of the teachings of Lee is provided.
Lee teaches a method (of forming device ‘OLED’; Fig. 1, Paragraph [0027]), comprising:
-forming a second transport layer (‘electron transport layer’ (160); Fig. 1, Paragraph [0035]) on the emission layer ((140); Fig. 1, Paragraph [0031]); and
-forming a second electrode ((180); Fig. 1, Paragraph [0037]) on the second transport layer (160).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee into the method of Suzuki to ensure that the methodology is such that it forms a second transport layer is on the emission layer; and forms a second electrode is on the second transport layer. This would be due to the fact that doing so would produce the expected result of incorporating a suggested structure to the organic layer (Suzuki, (3) comprising (3-1), (3-2), and (3-3), Paragraph [0026] – compare to Lee, (A), Paragraph [0036])
For the following claim rejections dependent on Claim 19, all references are directed towards Suzuki unless otherwise specified. For example, (4) refers to (Suzuki, (4)), while (Lee, (120)) refers to element (120) of Lee.
Regarding Claim 20, Suzuki as modified by Lee teaches a method (of forming ‘OLED’; Fig. 1, Paragraph [0014]) of Claim 19, wherein:
-the first electrode (2) is an anode (Paragraph [0025]),
-the first transport layer (3-1) is a hole transport layer (Paragraph [0026]),
-the second transport layer (3-3) is an electron transport layer (Paragraph [006] and Lee, Paragraph [0035]), and
-the second electrode (4) is a cathode (Paragraph [0033]).
Regarding Claim 22, Suzuki as modified by Lee teaches a method (of forming ‘OLED’; Fig. 1, Paragraph [0014]) of Claim 19, wherein:
-the first electrode (2) is a cathode (alternative as provided in Paragraph [0025]),
-the first transport layer (3-1) is an electron transport layer,
-the second transport layer (3-3) is a hole transport layer, (As taught in Lee, the hole transport layer should be on the anode, Paragraph [0030], and the electron transport layer should be on the cathode, Paragraph [0037]. Thus in the case of switched polarity (inverted cathode and anodes), the transport layers would similarly be switched) and
-the second electrode (4) is an anode (alternative as provided in Paragraph [0033]).
Regarding Claim 24, Suzuki teaches an organic light emitting diode (OLED) (‘OLED’; Fig. 1, Paragraph [0014]), comprising:
-a transparent substrate (‘glass substrate’ (1); Fig. 1, Paragraph [0014] and [0023]);
-a reflective electrode (‘reflective films’ (2)‘as lower electrodes’; Fig. 1, Paragraphs [0014] and [0025]) on the transparent substrate (1), the reflective electrode (2) including an amorphous metal (Paragraph [0019]);
-a first transport layer (‘hole transport layer’ of (3) when structured as variant 5, hereinafter (3-1); Paragraph [0026] and [0031]) on the reflective electrode (2);
-an emission layer (‘organic light-emitting layer of (3) when structured as variant 5 hereinafter (3-2); Paragraph [0026] and [0031]) on the first transport layer (3-1);
-a second transport layer (‘electron transport layer’, hereinafter (3-3), noted as above the light-emitting layer; Paragraph [0005]); and
-a transparent electrode ((4); Fig. 1, Paragraph [0033]) on the second transport layer (3-3) – necessarily as being above the full structure of (3).
Examiner notes that Suzuki discloses the presence of a second transport layer and that it is on the light-emitting layer, but does not clarify the structure. Therefore, an incorporation of the teachings of Lee is provided.
Lee teaches an organic light emitting diode (OLED) (‘OLED’; Fig. 1, Paragraph [0027]), comprising:
-a second transport layer (‘electron transport layer’ (160); Fig. 1, Paragraph [0035]) on the emission layer ((140); Fig. 1, Paragraph [0031]); and
-a transparent electrode (‘light transmissive’ (180); Fig. 1, Paragraphs [0037] and [0039]) on the second transport layer (160).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee into the device of Suzuki to ensure that the second transport layer is on the emission layer; and the transparent electrode is on the second transport layer. This would be due to the fact that doing so would produce the expected result of incorporating a suggested structure to the organic layer (Suzuki, (3) comprising (3-1), (3-2), and (3-3), Paragraph [0026] – compare to Lee, (A), Paragraph [0036])
Regarding Claim 25, Suzuki as modified by Lee teaches an organic light emitting diode (OLED) (‘OLED’; Fig. 1, Paragraph [0014]) of Claim 24, wherein:
-the reflective electrode (2) is an anode (Paragraph [0025]),
-the first transport layer (3-1) is a hole transport layer (Paragraph [0026]),
-the second transport layer (3-3) is an electron transport layer (Paragraph [006] and Lee, Paragraph [0035]), and
-the transparent electrode (4) is a cathode (Paragraph [0033]).
Regarding Claim 27, Suzuki as modified by Lee teaches an organic light emitting diode (OLED) (‘OLED’; Fig. 1, Paragraph [0014]) of Claim 24, wherein:
-the reflective electrode (2) is a cathode (alternative as provided in Paragraph [0025]),
-the first transport layer (3-1) is an electron transport layer,
-the second transport layer (3-3) is a hole transport layer, (As taught in Lee, the hole transport layer should be on the anode, Paragraph [0030], and the electron transport layer should be on the cathode, Paragraph [0037]. Thus in the case of switched polarity (inverted cathode and anodes), the transport layers would similarly be switched) and
-the transparent electrode (4) is an anode (alternative as provided in Paragraph [0033]).
Regarding Claim 30, Suzuki as modified by Lee teaches an organic light emitting diode (OLED) (‘OLED’; Fig. 1, Paragraph [0014]) of Claim 24, wherein:
- the reflective electrode (2) is in direct contact with the transparent substrate (1) (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0023]).
Claims 7, 11, 21, 23, 26, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Lee, in further view of Cowell, III et al. (U.S. Pub. 2021/0159444), hereinafter Cowell, III.
Regarding Claim 7, Suzuki as modified by Lee teaches a device (‘OLED’; Fig. 1, Paragraph [0014]) of Claim 4, but does not explicitly teach:
- the amorphous metal includes Zr-40Cu35Al15Ni10.
Cowell, III teaches a diode (Fig. 2, Paragraph [0045]) comprising an amorphous metal ((AMMF); Fig. 2, Paragraph [0045]), wherein:
-the amorphous metal includes Zr-40Cu35Al15Ni10. (Paragraph [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Cowell, III into the device of Suzuki as modified by Lee such that the amorphous metal includes Zr-40Cu35Al15Ni10. This would be due to the fact that doing so would produce the expected result of incorporating an amorphous metal with a homogeneously smooth surface which reduces inhomogeneity in the electric field of the device (Cowell, III, Paragraph [0045]).
Regarding Claim 11, Suzuki as modified by Lee teaches a device (‘OLED’; Fig. 1, Paragraph [0014]) of Claim 8, but does not explicitly teach:
- the amorphous metal includes material selected from a group of materials including Ta40Si40W10B10 and TiAl3.
Cowell, III teaches a diode (Fig. 2, Paragraph [0045]) comprising an amorphous metal ((AMMF); Fig. 2, Paragraph [0045]), wherein:
-the amorphous metal includes TiAl3. (Paragraph [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Cowell, III into the device of Suzuki as modified by Lee such that the amorphous metal includes TiAl3. This would be due to the fact that doing so would produce the expected result of incorporating an amorphous metal with a homogeneously smooth surface which reduces inhomogeneity in the electric field of the device (Cowell, III, Paragraph [0045]).
Regarding Claim 21, Suzuki as modified by Lee teaches a method (of forming ‘OLED’; Fig. 1, Paragraph [0014]) of Claim 20, but does not explicitly teach:
- the amorphous metal includes Zr-40Cu35Al15Ni10.
Cowell, III teaches a diode (Fig. 2, Paragraph [0045]) comprising an amorphous metal ((AMMF); Fig. 2, Paragraph [0045]), wherein:
-the amorphous metal includes Zr-40Cu35Al15Ni10. (Paragraph [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Cowell, III into the method of Suzuki as modified by Lee such that the amorphous metal includes Zr-40Cu35Al15Ni10. This would be due to the fact that doing so would produce the expected result of incorporating an amorphous metal with a homogeneously smooth surface which reduces inhomogeneity in the electric field of the device (Cowell, III, Paragraph [0045]).
Regarding Claim 23, Suzuki as modified by Lee teaches a method (of forming ‘OLED’; Fig. 1, Paragraph [0014]) of Claim 22, but does not explicitly teach:
- the amorphous metal includes material selected from a group of materials including Ta40Si40W10B10 and TiAl3.
Cowell, III teaches a diode (Fig. 2, Paragraph [0045]) comprising an amorphous metal ((AMMF); Fig. 2, Paragraph [0045]), wherein:
-the amorphous metal includes TiAl3. (Paragraph [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Cowell, III into the method of Suzuki as modified by Lee such that the amorphous metal includes TiAl3. This would be due to the fact that doing so would produce the expected result of incorporating an amorphous metal with a homogeneously smooth surface which reduces inhomogeneity in the electric field of the device (Cowell, III, Paragraph [0045]).
Regarding Claim 26, Suzuki as modified by Lee teaches an organic light emitting diode (OLED) (‘OLED’; Fig. 1, Paragraph [0014]) of Claim 25, but does not explicitly teach:
-the amorphous metal includes Zr-40Cu35Al15Ni10.
Cowell, III teaches a diode (Fig. 2, Paragraph [0045]) comprising an amorphous metal ((AMMF); Fig. 2, Paragraph [0045]), wherein:
-the amorphous metal includes Zr-40Cu35Al15Ni10. (Paragraph [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Cowell, III into the method of Suzuki as modified by Lee such that the amorphous metal includes Zr-40Cu35Al15Ni10. This would be due to the fact that doing so would produce the expected result of incorporating an amorphous metal with a homogeneously smooth surface which reduces inhomogeneity in the electric field of the device (Cowell, III, Paragraph [0045]).
Regarding Claim 28, Suzuki as modified by Lee teaches an organic light emitting diode (OLED) (‘OLED’; Fig. 1, Paragraph [0014]) of Claim 27, but does not explicitly teach:
- the amorphous metal includes material selected from a group of materials including Ta40Si40W10B10 and TiAl3.
Cowell, III teaches a diode (Fig. 2, Paragraph [0045]) comprising an amorphous metal ((AMMF); Fig. 2, Paragraph [0045]), wherein:
-the amorphous metal includes TiAl3. (Paragraph [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Cowell, III into the method of Suzuki as modified by Lee such that the amorphous metal includes TiAl3. This would be due to the fact that doing so would produce the expected result of incorporating an amorphous metal with a homogeneously smooth surface which reduces inhomogeneity in the electric field of the device (Cowell, III, Paragraph [0045]).
Regarding Claim 29, Suzuki as modified by Lee teaches an organic light emitting diode (OLED) (‘OLED’; Fig. 1, Paragraph [0014]) of Claim 24, but does not explicitly teach:
-the reflective electrode has a root mean square roughness between 0.5 and 1 nanometer.
Cowell, III teaches a diode (Fig. 2, Paragraph [0045]) comprising an amorphous metal ((AMMF); Fig. 2, Paragraph [0045]), wherein:
-the amorphous metal includes Zr-40Cu35Al15Ni10. (Paragraph [0067]), which
-has a root mean square roughness between 0.5 and 1 nanometer. (‘0.5 nm’; Paragraph [0035] – See also on Fig. 16, Rms = 0.518 nm)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Cowell, III into the method of Suzuki as modified by Lee such that the reflective electrode has a root mean square roughness between 0.5 and 1 nanometer. This would be due to the fact that doing so would produce the expected result of incorporating an amorphous metal with a homogeneously smooth surface which reduces inhomogeneity in the electric field of the device (Cowell, III, Paragraph [0045]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Lee, in further view of Usuki (JPH 10-149882), hereinafter Usuki.
Regarding Claim 14, Suzuki as modified by Lee teaches a device (‘OLED’; Fig. 1, Paragraph [0014]) of Claim 8, but does not explicitly teach:
- the second electrode includes an amorphous metal.
Usuki teaches a device (‘organic EL device’; Fig. 1, Paragraph [0012])
-the second electrode (16; Fig. 1) includes an amorphous metal (Abstract, second to last sentence).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Usuki into the device of Suzuki as modified by Lee such that the second electrode includes an amorphous metal. This would be due to the fact that doing so would increase environmental resistance and improve reliability (Usuki, Abstract and Paragraph [0012]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Lee, in further view of Jang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2021/0159444), hereinafter Jang.
Regarding Claim 18, Suzuki as modified by Lee teaches a device (‘OLED’; Fig. 1, Paragraph [0014]) of Claim 1, further comprising:
-a second blocking layer (Lee, (150); Fig. 1, Paragraph [0034]) on the emission layer ((3-2) / Lee, (140); Fig. 1, Paragraph [0031]), the second transport layer ((3-3) / Lee, (160)) being on the second blocking layer (150).
Neither Suzuki nor Lee teach:
-a first blocking layer on the first transport layer, the emission layer being on the first blocking layer
Jang teaches a device (‘organic electroluminescent device’; Fig. 1, Paragraph [0030]) comprising:
-a first blocking layer (‘electron blocking layer’ top of (hole transport zone); Fig. 1; Paragraph [0038]) on the first transport layer (‘hole transport layer’ of (hole transport zone); Fig. 1, Paragraph [0038]), the emission layer ((light-emitting layer); Fig. 1, Paragraph [0037]) being on the first blocking layer (electron blocking layer is between the hole transport layer and the light-emitting layer; Paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Jang into the device of Suzuki as modified by Lee such that it comprises a first blocking layer on the first transport layer, the emission layer being on the first blocking layer. This would be due to the fact that doing so would prevent a light-emitting leakage (Jang, Paragraph [0041]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DMITRI MIHALIOV whose telephone number is (571)270-5220. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays 7:30 - 17:30 US Eastern Time.
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached at (571) 272-1945. 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.
/DMITRI MIHALIOV/ Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/DAVIENNE N MONBLEAU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights