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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/09/2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species (A) a compound represented by Formula 1 for the first host and Species (B) a compound represented by Formula 2 for the second host in the reply filed on 12/18/2024 was previously acknowledged.
The elected species read on claims 1-20.
Response to Amendment
The applicant's reply of 12/09/2025 has been entered
Claims 1 and 17-18 amended due to the applicant's amendment.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the previous Office action are updated to reflect the amended claim language and maintained.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 12/12/2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the previous Office action for the reasons discussed below.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments on pages 18-23 of the reply dated 12/09/2025 with respect to the rejection of the claims 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 pages 18-19 that Langer in view of Dyatkin and Lim does not teach the dual emission layer comprising a phosphorescent emission layer and a fluorescent emission layer now recited in the claims.
Examiner's response – The examiner agrees that Langer alone does not appear to teach the claimed device. However, as discussed in the rejection of record, the modified device of Langer in view of Dyatkin and Lim meets each of the limitations specifically recited in the claims.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on page 19 that the remaining references either alone or in combination with Langer do not provide for the claimed device without impermissible hindsight.
Examiner's response -- In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. As discussed above and outlined below, the rejections take into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant's disclosure.
While no single reference cited appears to teach the claimed invention, as discussed in the rejection of record, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the cited references and the resulting device corresponds to the claimed device.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on page 19 that dependent claims 2-16, 19, and 20 incorporate all the limitations of independent claims 1 and 17-18 and should be allowable for the same reasons.
Examiner's response – The applicant has not provided additional arguments with respect to this claims and therefore, for the reasons outlined above, this is not found persuasive.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on pages 20-23 of the reply that the data in the instant specification and in the declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 12/12/2025 demonstrate that the claimed invention achieves unexpected results not taught by the prior art. Specifically, the applicant argues that the data compare devices with the claimed dual emission layer structure to comparative examples which have the phosphorescent host in the second emission layer instead of the fluorescent host and demonstrate that using a fluorescent host in the second emission layer instead of a phosphorescent host yield lower power requirements and extended durability.
Examiner's response -- Applicants have the burden of explaining the proffered data as evidence of non-obviousness. Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. Evidence relied upon should establish that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. Evidence of nonobviousness must also be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support. Comparison must be between the claimed subject matter and the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 716.02.
As discussed in the previous Office action, it is unclear whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. As discussed in greater detail in the rejection of record and in the updated rejection below, Lim teaches the device comprising Lim's emission layer has high efficiency and long lifespan and therefore forming a second light-emitting layer of Lim in the device of Langer in view of Dyatkin would yield the benefits of high efficiency and long lifespan, as described above. Looking to the data of Lim, a lifespan on the order of 88-160 hr is not unexpected (see Lim page 59, TABLE 1). Looking to the data of Langer, an efficiency on the order of 33 Cd/A is not unexpected. Thus, a dual emission layer device combining these emission layers possessing a lifespan on the order of 88-160 hr and an efficiency on the order of 33 Cd/A does not appear to be unexpected.
Further, it does not appear that comparison is being made to the closest prior art. The applicant argues that the data in the declaration compare devices with the claimed dual emission layer structure to comparative examples which have the phosphorescent host in the second emission layer instead of the fluorescent host. However, as discussed in the rejection of record, the second emission layer is taught by the secondary reference Lim and Lim teaches a light-emitting layer comprising a TADF (e.g. fluorescent) emitter and fluorescent host that corresponds to the compounds FH-1 or FH-2, not a phosphorescent host. Thus, the new comparative examples do not appear to make comparison between the unmodified devices in the cited references and the modified device in the rejection. The proposed modification in the rejection of record does not include substituting a phosphorescent host for a fluorescent host and as discussed above, there is an expectation of improved lifespan with the addition of the emission layer of Kim to the device of Langer.
For at least the reason discussed above, the data of the specification and the declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 12/12/2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection over Langer in view of Dyatkin and Lim.
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 1-14, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langer et al. US-20120012821-A1 (hereinafter "Langer") in view of Dyatkin et al. TW-201716413-A, see machine translation referred to herein as "Dyatkin-MT" and Lim et al. US-20190115538-A1 (hereinafter "Lim").
Regarding claims 1-14, 17, and 19, Langer teaches an organic light-emitting diode comprising an anode, a cathode, and a light-emitting layer arranged between the anode and the cathode, and at least one further layer selected from the group consisting of at least one blocking layer for holes/excitons, at least one blocking layer for electrons/excitons, at least one hole injection layer, at least one hole conductor layer, at least one electron injection layer and at least one electron conductor layer, wherein at least one compound of the formula (I) or (I*) is present in the light-emitting layer (¶ [0236]) with a phosphorescent emitter (¶ [0041] and [0251]). Langer teaches that the light emitting layer is 1 to 100 nm thick (¶ [0279]) and teaches examples wherein the light emitting layer is 10 nm (¶ [0399]). Langer teaches the device used in an apparatus in which electroluminescence is useful including displays (¶ [0282]). Langer teaches specific examples of the compound of the formula (I) or (I*) (¶ [0097]) including Compound 31 (¶ [0097] and ¶ [0388]).
PNG
media_image1.png
315
286
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 13).
Langer is silent with respect to wherein the first emission layer has greater hole mobility than electron mobility and the first host has a triplet excitation energy level (T1) value of 2.0 eV or more.
Dyatkin teaches that in compounds for use in organic light emitting devices, aza-type compounds are easier to reduce than their dibenzothiophene or dibenzofuran counterparts, and thus a device having a low operating voltage can be provided (page 7 of 21, lines 26-27).
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 substituted the dibenzofuran group in compound 31 for an azadibenzofuran, based on the teaching of Dyatkin. The motivation for doing so would have been to form compounds that are easier to reduce than their dibenzofuran counterpart, and thus form a device having a low operating voltage, as taught by Dyatkin.
The modified compounds of Langer in view of Dyatkin are each a compound of the claimed Formula 1 and correspond to claimed compounds PH-1 and PH-2.
The instant specification recites that compound PH-1 and PH-2 have T1 values of 3.05 eV and 3.02 eV, respectively. Since Langer in view of Dyatkin teaches the modified compounds described above, the same structure as disclosed by the applicant, the property of wherein the first emission layer has greater hole mobility than electron mobility and the first host has a triplet excitation energy level (Ti) value of 2.0 eV or more 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.
Langer in view of Dyatkin does not specifically teach a device as discussed above further comprising a second emission layer wherein the second emission layer comprises a second host and a second dopant and has greater electron mobility than hole mobility, and wherein the second host has a T1 value of 1.6 eV or more and 1.8 eV or less. However, Langer teaches that the device may further comprise a second light-emitting layer (¶ [0281]).
Lim teaches an organic light-emitting device including a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, and an organic layer between the first electrode and the second electrode and including an emission layer, wherein the emission layer includes a polycyclic compound represented by Formula 1 as a thermally activated delayed fluorescence (TADF) emitter dopant and an anthracene compound represented by Formula 2 as a host (¶ [0007]-[0011] and [0164]-[0168]). It is noted that TADF is a type of fluorescence and thus the light-emitting layer of Lim is a fluorescence emission layer. Lim teaches the device has high efficiency and long lifespan (¶ [0005]). Lim teaches examples of the anthracene host compound of Formula 2 include 2-53
PNG
media_image2.png
202
434
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and 2-55
PNG
media_image3.png
209
430
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0091], page 25).
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 Langer in view of Dyatkin by forming a second light-emitting layer out of the fluorescence light-emitting layer comprising a TADF polycyclic compound represented by Formula 1 as a dopant and an anthracene compound represented by Formula 2 as a host, as taught by Lim. One would have been motivated to do so because Langer teaches the device may comprise a second light emitting layer and Lim teaches a light emitting layer for an organic light emitting device with high efficiency and long lifespan. 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.
Additionally, Lim teaches the device comprising this emission layer has high efficiency and long lifespan and therefore forming a second light-emitting layer in the device of Langer in view of Dyatkin would yield the benefits of high efficiency and long lifespan, as described above.
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 specifically select compounds 2-53 or 2-55, because it would have been choosing from the list of specifically exemplified compounds of Lim, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the host in the light emitting layer of the device of Langer in view of Dyatkin and Lim and possessing the benefits taught by Lim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by the general formula of Lim having the benefits as described above taught by Lim in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.(E).
Finally, Lim teaches L22 may be a phenylene or a naphthylene group, among others (¶ [0048]) and R31 of Formula 2 may be a C1 alkyl group (¶ [0062]). Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Lim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the naphthylene group of compound 2-53 or 2-55 at the position corresponding to L-22 for a phenylene and the hydrogen group at the position corresponding to R31 for a C-1 alkyl group, because Lim teaches the variables may suitably be selected as such. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as the host in the light emitting layer of the device of Langer in view of Dyatkin and Lim and possess the benefits as described above taught by Lim. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
Two of the modified compounds Lim correspond to FH-1 or FH-2 and are each a compound of the claimed Formula 2.
The instant specification recites that compound FH-1 and FH-2 have T1 values of 1.75 eV and 1.77 eV, respectively. Since Langer in view of Dyatkin and Lim teaches a device comprising the modified compound of Lim, the same structure as disclosed by the applicant, the property of wherein the second emission layer has greater electron mobility than hole mobility, and wherein the second host has a T1 value of 1.6 eV or more and 1.8 eV or less or more 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.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langer et al. US-20120012821-A1 (hereinafter "Langer") in view of Dyatkin et al. TW-201716413-A, see machine translation referred to herein as "Dyatkin-MT" and Lim et al. US-20190115538-A1 (hereinafter "Lim") as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Lee et al. US-20150123086-A1 (hereinafter "Lee").
Regarding claims 15-16, Langer in view of Dyatkin and Lim teach the device as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Langer in view of Dyatkin and Lim does not teach a device further comprising a capping layer, wherein the capping layer is located outside the first electrode and/or outside the second electrode, and wherein the capping layer has a refractive index of 1.5 or more and 2.0 or less with light of a wavelength of 589 nm.
Lee teaches an organic light emitting diode including a capping layer including a first surface and a second surface and having a gradient of refractive index that varies along a thickness direction from the first surface toward the second surface (abstract), wherein the capping layer is disposed on the outside of one of the electrodes of the organic light emitting diode (¶ [0074], FIG. 3). The first surface has a refractive index in a range of about 1.3 to about 1.8 and the second surface may have a refractive index in a range of about 1.8 to about 2.7 (¶ [0013]), and Lee shows this to be the case at wavelength of 589 nm (¶ [0137], FIG. 8). Lee teaches that providing such a capping layer on an organic light emitting diode improves light extraction efficiency and white angular dependence characteristics (¶ [0029]).
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 Langer in view of Dyatkin and Lim to include the capping layer of Lee, based on the teaching of Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve light extraction efficiency and white angular dependence characteristics, as taught by Lee.
The refractive index in a range of about 1.8 to about 2.7 overlaps with the claimed range of 1.5 or more and 2.0 or less. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langer et al. US-20120012821-A1 (hereinafter "Langer") in view of Dyatkin et al. TW-201716413-A, see machine translation referred to herein as "Dyatkin-MT", Lim et al. US-20190115538-A1 (hereinafter "Lim"), and Hatwar et al. US-20100288362-A1 (hereafter "Hatwar").
Regarding claim 18, Langer teaches an organic light-emitting diode comprising an anode, a cathode, and a light-emitting layer arranged between the anode and the cathode, and at least one further layer selected from the group consisting of at least one blocking layer for holes/excitons, at least one blocking layer for electrons/excitons, at least one hole injection layer, at least one hole conductor layer, at least one electron injection layer and at least one electron conductor layer, wherein at least one compound of the formula (I) or (I*) is present in the light-emitting layer (¶ [0236]) with a phosphorescent emitter (¶ [0041] and [0251]). Langer teaches that the light emitting layer is 1 to 100 nm thick (¶ [0279]) and teaches examples wherein the light emitting layer is 10 nm (¶ [0399]). Langer teaches the device used in an apparatus in which electroluminescence is useful including displays (¶ [0282]). Langer teaches specific examples of the compound of the formula (I) or (I*) (¶ [0097]) including Compound 31 (¶ [0097] and ¶ [0388]).
PNG
media_image1.png
315
286
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 13).
Langer is silent with respect to wherein the first emission layer has greater hole mobility than electron mobility and the first host has a triplet excitation energy level (T1) value of 2.0 eV or more.
Dyatkin teaches that in compounds for use in organic light emitting devices, aza-type compounds are easier to reduce than their dibenzothiophene or dibenzofuran counterparts, and thus a device having a low operating voltage can be provided (page 7 of 21, lines 26-27).
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 substituted the dibenzofuran group in compound 31 for an azadibenzofuran, based on the teaching of Dyatkin. The motivation for doing so would have been to form compounds that are easier to reduce than their dibenzofuran counterpart, and thus form a device having a low operating voltage, as taught by Dyatkin.
The modified compounds of Langer in view of Dyatkin are each a compound of the claimed Formula 1 and correspond to claimed compounds PH-1 and PH-2.
The instant specification recites that compound PH-1 and PH-2 have T1 values of 3.05 eV and 3.02 eV, respectively. Since Langer in view of Dyatkin teaches the modified compounds described above, the same structure as disclosed by the applicant, the property of wherein the first emission layer has greater hole mobility than electron mobility and the first host has a triplet excitation energy level (Ti) value of 2.0 eV or more 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.
Langer in view of Dyatkin does not specifically teach a device as discussed above further comprising a second emission layer wherein the second emission layer comprises a second host and a second dopant and has greater electron mobility than hole mobility, and wherein the second host has a T1 value of 1.6 eV or more and 1.8 eV or less. However, Langer teaches that the device may further comprise a second light-emitting layer (¶ [0281]).
Lim teaches an organic light-emitting device including a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, and an organic layer between the first electrode and the second electrode and including an emission layer, wherein the emission layer includes a polycyclic compound represented by Formula 1 as a thermally activated delayed fluorescence (TADF) emitter dopant and an anthracene compound represented by Formula 2 as a host (¶ [0007]-[0011] and [0164]-[0168]). It is noted that TADF is a type of fluorescence and thus the light-emitting layer of Lim is a fluorescence emission layer. Lim teaches the device has high efficiency and long lifespan (¶ [0005]). Lim teaches the device has high efficiency and long lifespan (¶ [0005]). Lim teaches examples of the anthracene host compound of Formula 2 include 2-53
PNG
media_image2.png
202
434
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and 2-55
PNG
media_image3.png
209
430
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0091], page 25).
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 Langer in view of Dyatkin by forming a second light-emitting layer out of the light-emitting layer comprising a polycyclic compound represented by Formula 1 as a dopant and an anthracene compound represented by Formula 2 as a host, as taught by Lim. One would have been motivated to do so because Langer teaches the device may comprise a second light emitting layer and Lim teaches a light emitting layer for an organic light emitting device with high efficiency and long lifespan. 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.
Additionally, Lim teaches the device comprising this emission layer has high efficiency and long lifespan and therefore forming a second light-emitting layer in the device of Langer in view of Dyatkin would yield the benefits of high efficiency and long lifespan, as described above.
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 specifically select compounds 2-53 or 2-55, because it would have been choosing from the list of specifically exemplified compounds of Lim, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the host in the light emitting layer of the device of Langer in view of Dyatkin and Lim and possessing the benefits taught by Lim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by the general formula of Lim having the benefits as described above taught by Lim in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.(E).
Finally, Lim teaches L22 may be a phenylene or a naphthylene group, among others (¶ [0048]) and R31 of Formula 2 may be a C1 alkyl group (¶ [0062]). Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Lim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the naphthylene group of compound 2-53 or 2-55 at the position corresponding to L-22 for a phenylene and the hydrogen group at the position corresponding to R31 for a C-1 alkyl group, because Lim teaches the variables may suitably be selected as such. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as the host in the light emitting layer of the device of Langer in view of Dyatkin and Lim and possess the benefits as described above taught by Lim. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
Two of the modified compounds Lim correspond to FH-1 or FH-2 and are each a compound of the claimed Formula 2.
The instant specification recites that compound FH-1 and FH-2 have T1 values of 1.75 eV and 1.77 eV, respectively. Since Langer in view of Dyatkin and Lim teaches a device comprising the modified compound of Lim, the same structure as disclosed by the applicant, the property of wherein the second emission layer has greater electron mobility than hole mobility, and wherein the second host has a T1 value of 1.6 eV or more and 1.8 eV or less or more 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.
Langer in view of Dyatkin and Lim above does not teach wherein the device includes a plurality of light emitting units comprising the light emitting layer discussed above with a plurality of charge generation layers therebetween. However, in the analogous art of OLEDs, Hatwar teaches an organic light-emitting device (see Figure 1 and [0098]) comprising a first electrode (“anode 110”), a second electrode (“cathode 170”), a plurality of light-emitting units in the number of m disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (“N EL units”) comprising at least one emission layer (¶ [0092]), and a plurality of charge generation layers in the number of m-1 disposed between two neighboring light-emitting units (“N-1 intermediate connector regions”) wherein m is an integer of 2 or more (“N is an integer greater than 1” – see [0098]).
Hatwar suggests that many different energy transfer processes can occur inside the emission layers (EMLs) of the light-emitting units and that the layer may be fluorescent or phosphorescent or a combination of both (¶ [0092]). Hatwar also suggests that the colors of the emission layers may be selected so as to obtain the desired properties. For example, Hatwar suggests that a white OLED can be achieved by including blue light emitting layers in combination with red and green emitting layers (¶ [0100]-[0101]).
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 a white OLED comprising the light emitting layers of Langer in view of Dyatkin and Lim such that it includes the stacked emission layer structure including light-emitting units of different colors and connector regions disclosed by Hatwar wherein a maximum emission wavelength of light emitted by one light-emitting unit (i.e. the light emitted by the emitting layers of Langer in view of Dyatkin and Lim) is different from the maximum emission wavelength of light emitted by the other light emitting unit, because this would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2143.I.(A). One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have done so with a reasonable expectation of success in practicing the invention of the prior art combination and achieving the benefits described above while also obtaining the desired white light emission as taught by Hatwar.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langer et al. US-20120012821-A1 (hereinafter "Langer") in view of Dyatkin et al. TW-201716413-A, see machine translation referred to herein as "Dyatkin-MT" and Lim et al. US-20190115538-A1 (hereinafter "Lim") as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Shu et al. US-20170207406-A1 (hereinafter "Shu").
Regarding claim 20, Langer in view of Dyatkin and Lim teach the device as discussed above with respect to claim 19.
Langer in view of Dyatkin and Lim does not teach a device as discussed above wherein the device further comprises quantum dots.
Shu teaches that light emitted by quantum dots has a very narrow width and has extremely excellent color purity (¶ [0003]). Shu teaches that by incorporating quantum dot materials into a light emitting diode, better color gamut can be achieved (¶ [0003]).
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 quantum dot materials into the modified device of Langer in view of Dyatkin and Lim, based on the teaching of Shu. The motivation for doing so would have been to achieve better color gamut, as taught by Shu.
Contact Information
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 on 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