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 (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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of (d) an aromatic imidazole moiety-containing compound and (iii) wherein the n-type dopant comprises a metal oxide in the reply filed on 02/13/2024 was previously acknowledged.
As amended, the elected species reads on claims 1-6 and 10-20. Claim 8 remains withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Response to Amendment
The applicant's reply of 02/04/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1 and 3 are amended due to the applicant's amendment.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 10-20 are pending and claim 8 is withdrawn from consideration.
The rejection of claims 1-6 and 10-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement as set forth in the previous Office action is overcome due to the applicant's amendment. The rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments on pages 12-13 of the reply dated 02/04/2026 with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the previous Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on page 12 that the rejections set forth in the previous Office action are overcome due to the applicant's amendment. Specifically, the cited references do not disclose, teach, or suggest the feature of wherein the interlayer comprises a hole injection layer and the hole injection layer is in contact with the hole transport layer.
Examiner's response – As discussed in the rejection of record, the modified device of Hahm in view of Zhou has the following structure between the anode and the light emitting layer: a first hole injection layer of Hahm comprising TPBI as the n-type organic material and MoO3 as the n-type dopant wherein TBPI with MoO3 are together in a mass ratio of 1:20 / second hole injection layer of Hahm / hole transport layer of Hahm. This structure appears to meet the claim wherein the first hole injection layer and the second hole injection layer are together be considered one hole injection layer (formed to two pieces) which is in contact with the anode and the hole transport layer. Each of the limitations regarding the hole injection layer are met by this structure. Therefore, the amendment to the claim does not appear to overcome the rejection of record.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues bridging pages 12-13 that the embodiment of the invention as claimed in claim 1 is not taught, described, or suggested in Hahm, or in view of Zhou, Kido, Seo, Koo, and Yoon and there is no apparent reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the disclosures of these references in such a way as to arrive at the claimed embodiment.
Examiner's response -- The applicant has not provided additional arguments with respect to the rejections in view of Zhou, Kido, Seo, Koo, and Yoon and therefore, for the reasons outlined above, this is not found persuasive.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on page 13 of the reply that because claims 2-6, 8, and 10-20 depend from claim 1, they each incorporate all of the terms and features of their base claim, in addition to other features, which together further patentably distinguish these claims over the art of record when considered as a whole and therefore, applicant requests that the rejections of these claims also be withdrawn, and that these claims be allowed.
Examiner's response – The applicant has not provided additional arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 2-6, 8, and 10-20 and therefore, for the reasons outlined above, this is not found persuasive.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 10-11, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahm et al. KR-20130134983-A (hereinafter "Hahm-KR"), see machine translation referred to as "Hahm-MT", in view of Zhou et al. CN-104078575-A hereinafter "Zhou-CN"), see machine translation referred to as "Zhou-CN".
Regarding claim 1-5, 10-11, and 15-18, Hahm teaches an organic light emitting device comprising the layer structure: anode / first hole injection layer / second hole injection layer / hole transport layer / light emitting layer / electron transport layer / electron injection layer / cathode (FIG. 1 and Hahm-MT, page 1 line 32 to page 2 line 2). Hahm also teaches an organic light emitting device comprising the layer structure: anode / first hole injection layer / second hole injection layer / hole transport layer / light emitting layer / first hole injection layer / second hole injection layer / hole transport layer / light emitting layer / electron transport layer / electron injection layer / cathode (FIG. 5 and Hahm-MT, page 10 lines 4-11 and 20). Hahm teaches the first hole injection layer comprises an n-type organic material and an n-type dopant (Hahm-MT, page 1 lines 33-34). The first hole-injection layer is both in electrical contact with the anode and in direct physical contact with the anode.
Hahm does not specifically disclose: (a) wherein the n-type organic material is an imidazole moiety-containing compound comprising TPBI and having both hole transport capability and electron transport capability and having a hole mobility (MH) and electron mobility (ME) that satisfy the claimed Equation (1): MH ≤ ME x 0.95; or (b) wherein an amount of the n-type organic material is less than an amount of the n-type dopant. However, Hahm teaches that the n-type organic material may be a compound having a functional group selected from, but not limited to, an imidazole group (Hahm-Mt, page 3, lines 20-21) and Hahm teaches that the n-type dopant may be a metal oxide, among other materials (Hahm-MT, page 3, lines 8-13).
Zhou teaches organic electroluminescent device comprising an n-type layer comprising a metal oxide and electronic transmission material in the metal oxide. Zhou specifically teaches an n-type layer in an exemplary organic electroluminescent device comprising TBPI:MoO3 wherein the mass ration of TPBI to MoO3 is 1:20 (¶ [0069], Zhou-MT). Thus, Zhou teaches that TBPI is suitably used as an n-type organic material and MoO3 is suitably used in as an n-type metal oxide material together in an organic material layer of an organic electroluminescent device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hahm by forming the n-type organic material out of the imidazole moiety-containing compound TPBI, and the n-type dopant out of the metal oxide MoO3, as taught by Zhou. One would have been motivated to do so because Hahm teaches that the n-type organic material may be an imidazole group, the n-type dopant may be a metal oxide, and Zhou teaches an imidazole group-containing compound TBPI with metal oxide MoO3 together in a mass ratio of 1:20 in an organic material layer of an organic electroluminescent device. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Hahm and Zhou appears silent with respect to the property of TPBI having both hole transport capability and electron transport capability and having a hole mobility (MH) and an electron mobility (ME) that satisfy the claimed Equation (1): MH ≤ ME x 0.95.
The instant specification recites in Table 1 on page 86 that TBPI has a hole mobility (MH) of 2 x 10-5 cm/Vs and an electron mobility (ME) of 3.3 x 10-3 cm2/Vs, which satisfies the claimed Equation (1): MH ≤ ME x 0.95. Since Hahm in view of Zhou teaches the n-type organic material as TPBI, the same structure as disclosed by the applicant, the property of having both hole transport capability and electron transport capability and having a hole mobility (MH) and electron mobility (ME) that satisfy the claimed Equation (1): MH ≤ ME x 0.95 is considered to be inherent and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim, absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP § 2112.
The modified device of Hahm in view of Zhou has the following structure between the anode and the light emitting layer: a first hole injection layer of Hahm comprising TPBI as the n-type organic material and MoO3 as the n-type dopant wherein TBPI with MoO3 are together in a mass ratio of 1:20 / second hole injection layer of Hahm / hole transport layer of Hahm. TBPI corresponds to the claimed first electron transport compound and the amount of TPBI is less than the amount of MoO3, the n-type dopant material, and therefore the modified device of Hahm in view of Zhou meets the claimed proviso (i).
Thus, the modified device of Hahm in view of Zhou meets claims 1-5, 10-11, and 15-18.
Claims 6 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahm et al. KR-20130134983-A (hereinafter "Hahm-KR"), see machine translation referred to as "Hahm-MT", in view of Zhou et al. CN-104078575-A hereinafter "Zhou-CN"), see machine translation referred to as "Zhou-CN" as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kido et al. US-6396209-B1 (hereinafter "Kido").
Regarding claims 6 and 12-13, Hahm in view of Zhou teaches the modified device as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Hahm in view of Zho does not specifically disclose a device as discussed above wherein the electron transport layer comprises a second electron transport compound that is different from the n-type organic material of Zhou, which corresponds to the claimed first electron transport compound, wherein said second electron transport compound is a metal-containing material comprising an alkali complex, an alkaline earth-metal complex, or any combination thereof. However, Hahm does not specify the material of the electron transport layer (Hahm-MT, page 2 line 1, page 9, line 19 and 28, and page 12, line 32).
Kido teaches an organic light emitting device comprising at least one luminescent layer, constituted from an organic compound, between a cathode electrode and an anode electrode, wherein the device further includes an organic layer adjacent to the cathode electrode, the organic layer being a mixed layer of an electron-transporting organic compound and an organic metal complex compound containing at least one member selected from the group including an alkali metal ion, an alkali earth metal ion and a rare earth metal ion (Col. 2 last paragraph to Col. 3 first paragraph). Kido teaches that by incorporating this layer, it is possible to produce EL devices having a diminished electron injection barrier, being capable of operating at a reduced driving voltage with a high efficiency and high luminance (Col. 8, lines 42-46). Kido teaches examples of the mixed layer including that in Examples 1 and 2 comprising a lithium complex of mono(8-quinolinolato) (referred to as "Liq") and Alq (Col. 9) and teaches further examples of the materials in Cols. 5-6.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hahm in view of Zhou to incorporate the mixed layer of Kido into the electron transport region, based on the teaching of Kido. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain an EL device having a diminished electron injection barrier, being capable of operating at a reduced driving voltage with a high efficiency and high luminance, as taught by Kido.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a lithium complex of mono(8-quinolinolato) as the organic metal complex, which is an alkali metal complex, because it would have been choosing from a finite list of exemplary materials taught by Kido, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of compounds useful in the mixed layer and possessing the benefits taught by Kido. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising the various materials as taught by Kido having the benefits taught by Kido in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.(E).
The mixed electron injection layer of Kido is between the light emitting layer and the cathode and necessarily transports electrons and is therefore an electron transport layer.
Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahm et al. KR-20130134983-A (hereinafter "Hahm-KR"), see machine translation referred to as "Hahm-MT", in view of Zhou et al. CN-104078575-A hereinafter "Zhou-CN"), see machine translation referred to as "Zhou-CN" as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Seo et al. US-20040137270-A1 (hereinafter "Seo").
Regarding claim 14, Hahm in view of Zhou teaches the modified device as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Hahm in view of Zhou does not specifically disclose a device as discussed above wherein the light emitting material emits blue or green light. Hahm appears silent with respect the light emitting material(s) of the light emitting layer(s).
Seo teaches a blue emitting material of a chemical formula 1 used in the light emitting layer of an organic luminescent device (¶ [0017]). Seo teaches the emitting material of the chemical formula 1 is a blue emitting material with high color purity and a high luminescent efficiency (¶ [0087]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form at least one of the light emitting layer materials in the device of Hahm in view of Zhou out of the blue emitting material of Seo, based on the teaching of Seo. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain high color purity and high luminescent efficiency, as taught by Seo.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahm et al. KR-20130134983-A (hereinafter "Hahm-KR"), see machine translation referred to as "Hahm-MT", in view of Zhou et al. CN-104078575-A hereinafter "Zhou-CN"), see machine translation referred to as "Zhou-CN" as applied to claim 18 above and further in view of Koo et al. US-20050116291-A1 ("Koo").
Regarding claim 19, Hahm in view of Zhou teaches the modified device as discussed above with respect to claim 18.
Hahm in view of Zhou does not specifically teach a device as discussed above further comprising a thin-film transistor, wherein the thin-film transistor comprises a source electrode and a drain electrode, and the first electrode of the light-emitting device is electrically coupled to at least one selected from the source electrode and the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor.
Koo teaches provides an apparatus for use in a display device in which gradation is displayed easily by optimizing heat treatment conditions of thin film transistors (¶ [0011]). Koo teaches an organic electroluminescence display device comprising a thin film transistor comprising an active layer formed on an insulating substrate and equipped with source regions and drain regions, and a protection film formed on a surface of an insulating substrate having the thin film transistor and equipped with a via hole for exposing a part of the source electrode or the drain electrode, wherein an organic emitting device is electrically coupled to the thin film transistor through the via hole (¶ [0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate thin film transistor comprising an active layer formed on an insulating substrate and equipped with source regions and drain regions, and a protection film formed on a surface of an insulating substrate having the thin film transistor and equipped with a via hole for exposing a part of the source electrode or the drain electrode, wherein an organic light emitting device of Hahm in view of Zhou is electrically coupled to the thin film transistor through the via hole, based on the teaching of Koo. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an apparatus for use in a display device in which gradation is displayed easily by optimizing heat treatment conditions of thin film transistors, as taught by Koo.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahm et al. KR-20130134983-A (hereinafter "Hahm-KR"), see machine translation referred to as "Hahm-MT", in view of Zhou et al. CN-104078575-A hereinafter "Zhou-CN"), see machine translation referred to as "Zhou-CN" as applied to claim 18 above and further in view of Yoon et al. US-20190305227-A1 (hereinafter "Yoon").
Regarding claim 20, Hahm in view of Zhou teaches the modified device as discussed above with respect to claim 18.
Hahm in view of Zhou does not specifically teach a device as discussed above further comprising a color filter, a color conversion layer, a tough screen layer, or a polarizing layer.
Yoon teaches an organic light emission display device including a color filter that absorbs light generated from an organic electroluminescent device (¶ [0114]). Yoon teaches that adopting the color filter may allow the organic light emission display device to render a full color range (¶ [0114]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a color filter into the device of Hahm in view of Zhou, based on the teaching of Yoon. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for the device to render a full color range, as taught by Yoon.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth M. Dahlburg whose telephone number is 571-272-6424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, and alternate Fridays.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights