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 .
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 11/06/2025, the claims were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1, 4-5, 21-22, and 24-26 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (US 2018/0301629 A1), Lecloux et al. (US 2011/0121269 A1), and Nakamura et al. (US 2015/0171356 A1), claims 6-9 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama, Lecloux, and Nakamura above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0074451 A1), and claim 10-19 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama, Lecloux, and Nakamura above, and further in view of Shin et al. (US 2018/0166647 A1) are withdrawn by the Office.
Claims 1 and 4 have been amended.
Claim 27 has been added.
Claims 4, 21, 22, and 24-26 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 5-19, and 27 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s arguments that the instantly claimed dopant demonstrates superior lifetime compared to its non-deuterated analogs, Examiner does not find this argument persuasive because the ability for deuteration to increase lifetime in electroluminescent compounds was well established prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as outlined below.
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (US 2018/0301629 A1), Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1), and Lecloux et al. (US 2011/0121269 A1) in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2015/0171356 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Hatakeyama teaches an organic light-emitting device comprising a substrate, an organic light-emitting diode positioned on the substrate including a first electrode (an anode, ITO), a second electrode (a cathode, Mg/Ag) (see paragraphs 0480-0483 for manufacture of a device), a first emitting material layer including an anthracene derivative host and a first dopant which is a boron derivative (abstract).
Hatakeyama teaches that the first dopant (boron-derivative) is represented by Formula 1-2662 (page 34), which is pictured below.
This compound is derived from Hatakeyama formula (1-447-R) (page 41), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
410
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hatakeyama also teaches that R is an alkyl having 4 carbons and n is 0 or 1 (paragraph 0104), examples of alkyl groups include t-butyl (paragraph 0140, line 2), and that all or a portion of the hydrogen atoms in the polycyclic compound can be replaced by deuterium atoms (paragraph 0096).
Such a modification produces the dopant below.
PNG
media_image2.png
466
504
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This compound is identical to instant compound Dopant 3-5 of Formula 4.
Hatakeyama also teaches that the anthracene compound may represented by formula 3-4 (page 0163), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
189
389
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hatakeyama also teaches that any hydrogen atom in this formula may be substituted by deuterium (paragraph 0019).
This forms the compound below.
PNG
media_image4.png
398
164
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This compound is identical to instant Host 2 of Formula 2.
However, Hatakeyama does not teach nor fairly suggest the boron-containing compound should be deuterated.
In analogous art, Li teaches organic semiconductors consisting of a chromophore in which one or more hydrogen atoms is replace with a deuterium atom (abstract).
Li teaches that the carbon-deuterium chemical bond is stronger, more stable, and reacts more slowly than the carbon-hydrogen bond, so that deuterated organic systems have better thermal stability and longer lifetime in optoelectronic devices. Further, Deuterated luminescent materials also have a higher electroluminescent quantum yield as a result of smaller non-radiative triplet state (paragraph 0009).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate one or more deuterium atoms into the dopant compound of Hatakeyama in order to convey better thermal stability, longer lifetime in optoelectronic devices, and higher electroluminescent quantum yield than its non-deuterated analogue, as taught by Li.
However, neither Hatakeyama nor Li teaches nor fairly suggests the advantage of deuterating the anthracene core of the compound
In analogous art, Lecloux teaches deuterated aryl-anthracene compounds that are useful in electronic applications (abstract).
Lecloux teaches compound H11, which is a positional isomer of the compound of Hatakeyama (paragraph 0063), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
384
480
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Lecloux compares H11, found in device examples 8-1 and 8-2, and compares it its undeuterated analog, Comparative A, found in device examples Comparative D-1 and Comparative D-2, in Table 4 (page 22).
The results of Table 4 demonstrate that deuterating the anthracene core of the compound results in significant increase in lifetime of the device comprising the compound. Additionally, Lecloux teaches that the compounds described therein can be formed using liquid deposition techniques and have greatly improved properties when compared to analogous non-deuterated compounds and that electronic device including an active layer (a light-emitting layer) with the compounds have greatly improved lifetimes in addition to high quantum efficiency, good color saturation, greater air tolerance, and greater processing tolerance for both preparation and purification of the materials and formation of electronic devices (paragraph 0067).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deuterate the anthracene core of the compound of Hatakeyama in order to obtain a compound which can be used in liquid deposition techniques and which demonstrates greatly improved properties when compared to analogous non-deuterated compounds and an electronic device including an active layer (a light-emitting layer) with the compound which has greatly improved lifetimes in addition to high quantum efficiency, good color saturation, greater air tolerance, and greater processing tolerance for both preparation and purification of the materials and formation of the aforementioned electronic devices, as taught by Lecloux.
Hatakeyama teaches that the combination of the anthracene derivative and the boron-derivatives above result in a light-emitting layer with optimum light-emission characteristics and an excellent organic EL element (abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the deuterated anthracene compound of Lecloux with the deuterated boron-derivative of Hatakeyama in order to obtain a light-emitting layer with optimum light-emission characteristics and an excellent organic EL element, as taught by Hatakeyama.
However, Hatakeyama does not teach the device comprises an electron-blocking layer or electron-blocking material represented by Formula 5.
In analogous art, Nakamura teaches an arylamine compound comprising at least one dibenzofuran that has a large energy gap and is suitable for confining exciton energy (paragraph 0046). Nakamura gives an example of an arylamine compound comprising a dibenzofuran which is suitable for blocking exciton energy in a compound on page 14 which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image6.png
296
300
media_image6.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from the combination of Formulae 1 and 2, wherein in Formula 2, X can be a sulfur or oxygen atom (paragraph 0016).
When the sulfur atom is replaced by the alternative oxygen atom it forms a compound which meets the requirements of instant Formula 5 when a is 0 so that L is not present, b and c are 0 and R1 and R2 are not present, R3 is a C12 heteroaryl group containing oxygen as the heteroatom (dibenzofuranyl), and R4 is a C6 aryl (phenyl).
Nakamura teaches that organic EL devices comprising this compound in the intermediate (electron-blocking) layer have high luminous efficiency by confinement of exciton energy, whereby transportation of holes and transportation of electrons can be conducted in a well-balanced manner and emission of two or more emitting layers can be conducted in a well-balanced manner. Further, due to high electron density, the compound has the effect of accelerating transportation of electrons (paragraph 0046).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the electron-bocking layer comprising the electron-blocking compound of Nakamura into the hole-transporting region of the device of Hatakeyama in order to obtain high luminous efficiency by confinement of exciton energy, whereby transportation of holes and transportation of electrons can be conducted in a well-balanced manner and emission of two or more emitting layers can be conducted in a well-balanced manner, as taught by Nakamura.
With respect to claim 5, Hatakeyama, Li, Lecloux, and Nakamura teach the device of claim 1, and the electron blocking material is identical to instant Compound E9.
Claims 6-9 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (US 2018/0301629 A1), Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1), and Lecloux et al. (US 2011/0121269 A1) in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2015/0171356 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0074451 A1).
With respect to claim 6, Hatakeyama, Li, Lecloux, and Nakamura teach the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Hatakeyama teaches the electroluminescent device may comprise an electron transport layer and the electron transport layer may comprise a pyrimidine derivative (paragraph 0055, line 10), such as compound of formula (ETM-8-1) (paragraph 0293), which is pictured below
PNG
media_image7.png
119
291
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In this formula, all three of Ar are an aryl, one of which is substituted (paragraph 0294), such as a phenyl(ene) group (an aryl having 6 carbon atoms, paragraph 0295, line 2), the substituent of which is a carbazolyl group (paragraph 0298, line 10).
This forms a compound which meets the requirements of instant claim 6 when Y1 and Y3 are nitrogen atoms, all other Y characters are carbon atoms, Y2 and Y4 are CR1 where R1 is a C6 aryl (phenyl) group, a and c are 0 and L and R3 are not present, b is 1 and R2 is a C12 heteroaryl (carbazolyl) group.
Hatakeyama includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Hatakeyama being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a pyrimidine derivative suitable for use in the electron transport layer of an electroluminescent device, commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
However, while an electron transport layer is capable of acting as a hole blocking layer, neither Hatakeyama, Li, Lecloux, nor Nakamura teaches nor fairly suggests that the electron transport region may include a hole-blocking layer.
In analogous art, Lee teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an electron transport region and a condensed cyclic compound comprising a pyridine derivative.
Lee teaches that an electron transport region may comprise a hole-blocking layer, an electron transporting layer, and an electron injecting layer (paragraph 0187). Lee also teaches that hole blocking layers may give a device excellent hole blocking characteristics without a substantial increase in driving voltage (paragraph 0254).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the electron-transporting pyrimidine derivative of Lee into a hole-blocking layer in the device of Hatakeyama as Lee teaches that a hole blocking layer is a known sub-layer of an electron transport layer, and that hole blocking layers may give a device excellent hole blocking characteristics without a substantial increase in driving voltage.
With respect to claim 7, Hatakeyama, Li, Lecloux, Nakamura, and Lee teach the device of claim 6, and the compound is instant H4.
With respect to claim 8, Hatakeyama, Li, Lecloux, and Nakamura teach the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Hatakeyama also teaches that the electroluminescent device may comprise an electron transport layer and the electron transport layer may comprise a benzimidazole derivative (paragraph 0055, line 11), such as the compound pictured below (paragraphs 0323-0328)
PNG
media_image8.png
157
400
media_image8.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant formula 9 when Ar is a C-14 aryl (anthracene) group, R81 is a C6 aryl (phenyl) group, and R82 is a C2 alkyl (ethyl) group.
However, while an artisan of ordinary skill would recognize that an electron transport layer is capable of acting as a hole blocking layer, Hatakeyama does not teach nor fairly suggest that the electron transport region may include a hole-blocking layer.
In analogous art, Lee teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an electron transport region which comprises a hole-blocking layer.
Lee teaches that an electron transport region may comprise a hole-blocking layer, an electron transporting layer, and an electron injecting layer (paragraph 0187). Lee also teaches that hole blocking layers may give a device excellent hole blocking characteristics without a substantial increase in driving voltage, as taught by Lee. (paragraph 0254).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the electron-transporting benzimidazole derivative of Hatakeyama into a hole-blocking layer in the device of Hatakeyama as Lee teaches that a hole blocking layer is a known sub-layer of an electron transport layer, and that hole blocking layers may give a device excellent hole blocking characteristics without a substantial increase in driving voltage.
With respect to claim 9, Hatakeyama, Li, Lecloux, Nakamura, and Lee teach the device of claim 8, and the hole-blocking material is instant H31.
With respect to claim 27, Hatakeyama, Li, Lecloux, and Nakamura teach the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
With respect to the instant hole-blocking compound, Hatakeyama also teaches that the electroluminescent device may comprise an electron transport layer and the electron transport layer may comprise a benzimidazole derivative (paragraph 0055, line 11), such as the compound pictured below (paragraphs 0323-0328)
PNG
media_image8.png
157
400
media_image8.png
Greyscale
This compound is identical to instant hole blocking compound H31.
However, while an artisan of ordinary skill would recognize that an electron transport layer is capable of acting as a hole blocking layer, Hatakeyama does not teach nor fairly suggest that the electron transport region may include a hole-blocking layer.
In analogous art, Lee teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an electron transport region which comprises a hole-blocking layer.
Lee teaches that an electron transport region may comprise a hole-blocking layer, an electron transporting layer, and an electron injecting layer (paragraph 0187). Lee also teaches that hole blocking layers may give a device excellent hole blocking characteristics without a substantial increase in driving voltage, as taught by Lee. (paragraph 0254).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the electron-transporting benzimidazole derivative of Hatakeyama into a hole-blocking layer in the device of Hatakeyama as Lee teaches that a hole blocking layer is a known sub-layer of an electron transport layer, and that hole blocking layers may give a device excellent hole blocking characteristics without a substantial increase in driving voltage.
With respect to the instant electron-blocking compound, the electron-blocking compound of Nakamura, pictured and discussed above, is derived from Nakamura formulae (1) and (2), wherein at least one of Ar1 to Ar3 is a heterocyclic group represented by formula (2).
PNG
media_image9.png
144
600
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
182
602
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Nakamura also teaches that Ar1 can be a substituted aromatic hydrocarbon group including 6 carbon atoms (paragraph 0014, lines 2-3), and that examples of substituents include naphthyl (paragraphs 0071 and 0055, line 3).
Such a modification produces instant electron blocking material E3.
Nakamura includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Nakamura being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible substituents to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound which, when used in an intermediate layer of an organic EL device, results in high luminous efficiency by confinement of exciton energy, whereby transportation of holes and transportation of electrons can be conducted in a well-balanced manner and emission of two or more emitting layers can be conducted in a well-balanced manner, as well as having the effect of accelerating transportation of electrons (paragraph 0046), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Claims 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (US 2018/0301629 A1), Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1), and Lecloux et al. (US 2011/0121269 A1) in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2015/0171356 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Shin et al. (US 2018/0166647 A1).
With respect to claim 10, Hatakeyama, Li, Lecloux, and Nakamura teach the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, neither Hatakeyama, Li, Lecloux, nor Nakamura teach the device comprises a second emitting material layer including a second host of anthracene and boron-derivatives and positioned between the first emitting material layer and second electrode and there is a charge generation layer between the first and second-emitting layers.
In analogous art, Shin teaches a white LED device having a tandem structure in which there is a first emitting layer including a blue emitting layer, and a second emitting layer including a yellow-green emitting layer which are vertically laminated with a charge generation layer between the first and second emitting layers (paragraph 0007). Shin teaches that in order to obtain a white LED having long lifetime, and LED having a tandem structure with plural emitting units is widely used (paragraph 0006). Shin also teaches that use of a charge generation layer between emitting layers increases the current efficiency of each emitting layer and smoothly distributes charge to each emitting layer (paragraphs 0007-0008).
Examiner would like to note that as Hatakeyama teaches the device comprising a boron and anthracene derivative may emit all the primary colors (red, green, and blue, paragraph 0366, lines 12-17), this is interpreted to overlap in scope with Shin who teaches one blue light layer and one yellow-green layer which results in white light emission.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a tandem device structure with plural emitting layers in order to obtain a white light emitting LED having long lifetime, as taught by Shin.
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a charge generation layer between emitting layers in order to increase the current efficiency of each emitting layer and smoothly distribute charge to each emitting layer, as taught by Shin.
With respect to claim 11, Hatakeyama, Li, Lecloux, Nakamura, and Shin teach the device of claim 10, as discussed above.
Also as discussed above, as Hatakeyama teaches the device comprising a boron and anthracene derivative may emit all the primary colors (red, green, and blue, paragraph 0366, lines 12-17), this is interpreted to overlap in scope with Shin who teaches one blue light layer and one yellow-green layer which results in white light emission.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the deuterated anthracene host material of Hatakeyama in the second light emitting layer of the tandem device of Hatakeyama, Li, Lecloux, Nakamura, and Shin with a reasonable expectation that the layer would emit either blue or yellow-green light.
With respect to claim 12, Hatakeyama, Li, Lecloux, and Nakamura teach the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, neither Hatakeyama, Li, Lecloux, nor Nakamura teach a second emitting material layer emitting blue light positioned between the first emitting material layer and the second electrode and a first generation layer between the first and second emitting layers.
In analogous art, Shin teaches a white LED device having a tandem structure in which there is a first emitting layer including a blue emitting layer, and a second emitting layer including a yellow-green emitting layer which are vertically laminated with a charge generation layer between the first and second emitting layers (paragraph 0007). Shin teaches that in order to obtain a white LED having long lifetime, and LED having a tandem structure with plural emitting units is widely used (paragraph 0006). Shin also teaches that use of a charge generation layer between emitting layers increases the current efficiency of each emitting layer and smoothly distributes charge to each emitting layer (paragraphs 0007-0008).
Examiner would like to note that as Hatakeyama teaches the device comprising a boron and anthracene derivative may emit all the primary colors (red, green, and blue, paragraph 0366, lines 12-17), this is interpreted to overlap in scope with Shin who teaches one blue light layer and one yellow-green layer which results in white light emission.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a tandem device structure with plural emitting layers in order to obtain a white light emitting LED having long lifetime, as taught by Shin.
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a charge generation layer between emitting layers in order to increase the current efficiency of each emitting layer and smoothly distribute charge to each emitting layer, as taught by Shin.
With respect to claim 13, Hatakeyama, Li, Lecloux, and Nakamura teach the device of claim 1, and Hatakeyama teaches each of a red pixel, green pixel, and blue pixel are defined on a substrate (paragraph 0366).
In analogous art, Shin teaches use of a color filter to filter light emitted from an OLED in order to produce a full color image (paragraph 0133).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a color filter on the pixels of Hatakeyama in order to produce a full color image, as taught by Shin.
With respect to claim 14, Hatakeyama, Li, Lecloux, Nakamura, and Shin teach the device of claim 10, as discussed above, and Shin teaches the organic light emitting diode may further include a third emitting material layer emitting a yellow-green light positioned between the first charge generation layer and the second emitting layer, and the second charge generation layer between the second and third emitting material layers (paragraphs 0103-0104)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a third emitting material layer emitting a yellow-green light positioned between the first charge generation layer and the second emitting layer, and a second charge generation layer between the second and third emitting material layers, as demonstrated by Shin.
With respect to claims 15 and 16, Hatakeyama, Li, Lecloux, Nakamura, and Shin teach the device of claim 10, and Shin teaches the third emitting layer may have the same property as the first emitting material layer (paragraph 0104, lines 6-8), such as two emitting material layers, such as a yellow-green emitting layer and a red emitting material layer (paragraph 0075), and is located between the first charge generation layer and the second emitting material layer, and the second charge generation layer between the second and third emitting material layers (see Fig.2 and paragraph 0096).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a third emitting layer with two emitting material layers, such as a yellow-green emitting layer and a red emitting material layer between the first charge generation layer and the second emitting material layer, and the second charge generation layer between the second and third emitting material layers, as taught by Shin.
With respect to claim 17, Hatakeyama, Li, Lecloux, Nakamura, and Shin teach the device of claim 16, and Shin teaches the third emitting layer may have the same property as the first emitting material layer (paragraph 0104, lines 6-8), such as including a red-light emitting layer, a yellow-green emitting layer, and a green emitting layer (paragraph 0066, lines 6-11).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a third, green light emitting layer in the red and yellow-green emitting layer of Hatakeyama, Li, Lecloux, Nakamura, and Shin, as taught by Shin.
With respect to claim 18, Hatakeyama, Li, Lecloux, and Nakamura teach the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, neither Hatakeyama, Li, Lecloux, nor Nakamura teach that the device further includes a second emitting layer emitting yellow-green light between the first emitting material layer and the second electrode, and a first charge generation layer between the first and second emitting material layers.
In analogous art, Shin teaches a white LED device having a tandem structure in which there is a first emitting layer including a blue emitting layer, and a second emitting layer including a yellow-green emitting layer which are vertically laminated with a charge generation layer between the first and second emitting layers (paragraph 0007). Shin teaches that in order to obtain a white LED having long lifetime, and LED having a tandem structure with plural emitting units is widely used (paragraph 0006). Shin also teaches that use of a charge generation layer between emitting layers increases the current efficiency of each emitting layer and smoothly distributes charge to each emitting layer (paragraphs 0007-0008).
Examiner would like to note that as Hatakeyama teaches the device comprising a boron and anthracene derivative may emit all the primary colors (red, green, and blue, paragraph 0366, lines 12-17), this is interpreted to overlap in scope with Shin who teaches one blue light layer and one yellow-green layer which results in white light emission.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a tandem device structure with plural emitting layers in order to obtain a white light emitting LED having long lifetime, as taught by Shin.
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a charge generation layer between emitting layers in order to increase the current efficiency of each emitting layer and smoothly distribute charge to each emitting layer, as taught by Shin.
With respect to claim 19, Hatakeyama, Li, Lecloux, Nakamura, and Shin teach the device of claim 14, and Hatakeyama teaches each of a red pixel, green pixel, and blue pixel are defined on a substrate (paragraph 0366). Shin also teaches use of a color filter to filter light emitted from the LED and produce a full color image (paragraph 0133).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a color filter on the pixels of Hatakeyama in order to produce a full color image, as taught by Shin.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Examiner, Art Unit 1786