DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/20/2026 has been entered.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 8, 10-13, 15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eum et al (US 2018/0053900) in view of Lee et al (US 2019/0386227) and Kamalasanan et al (US 2013/0015431).
Regarding claim 1, Eum et al discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, i.e. a first electrode, a cathode, i.e. a second electrode, and an organic layer, i.e. an interlayer, disposed between the anode and cathode ([0018] and [0276] - Table 2). The organic layer comprises the following ([0276] - Table 2):
hole injection layer / hole transport layer / light emitting layer / auxiliary electron
transport layer / electron transport layer / electron injection layer,
where the auxiliary electron transport layer corresponds to the recited first electron transport layer, and the electron transport layer corresponds to the recited second electron transport layer. From the above stacking of layers, it is clear that the auxiliary electron transport layer or first electron transport layer and the electron transport layer or second electron transport layer are directly in contact with each other.
The auxiliary transport layer comprises the following compound ([0019], [0061], [0044], and Page 6 – Compound 5):
PNG
media_image1.png
326
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
This compounds corresponds to the compound represented by Formula 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
239
595
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where:
X12 and X13 are N;
X11 is C(R15), where R15 is H;
L11 and L12 are single bonds;
L13 is an unsubstituted benzene ring;
a11, a12, and a13 are one (1);
Ar11 and Ar12 are unsubstituted phenyl groups; the integers b11 and b12 are both one (1); and
R11 and R12 are hydrogen.
The group:
PNG
media_image3.png
110
206
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
is represented by Formula 1A-1:
PNG
media_image4.png
106
194
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where:
R13 and R14 are methyl groups, i.e. C1 alkyls; and
c11 and c13 are three (3).
The reference teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above; however, the reference does not disclose that the electron transport layer, i.e. the recited second electron transport layer, comprises a compound represented by Formula 2.
Lee et al discloses an organic light emitting device, where the electron transport layer comprises the following compound (Abstract, [0026] [0093], [0098], [0091], and Page 24):
PNG
media_image5.png
382
456
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by Formula 2:
PNG
media_image6.png
148
507
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
where:
X21 to X26 are N;
L21 and L22 are single bonds;
a21 and a22 are both one (1); and
Ar21, Ar22, Ar23 and Ar24 are unsubstituted phenyl groups.
CY21 corresponds to recited Formula 2A-20:
PNG
media_image7.png
130
150
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
Alternatively, the reference discloses the following compound (Page 45):
PNG
media_image8.png
302
642
media_image8.png
Greyscale
This compound is identical to the compound discussed above, i.e.
X21 to X26 are N;
L21 and L22 are single bonds;
a21 and a22 are both one (1); and
Ar21, Ar22, Ar23 and Ar24 are unsubstituted phenyl groups,
except for the position that the triazine rings bond to the spirobifluorene, i.e. in this compound CY21 corresponds to recited Formula 2AA-19:
PNG
media_image9.png
110
164
media_image9.png
Greyscale
.
The reference discloses that the use of these compounds improves the efficiency, low driving voltage, and lifetime characteristics of the organic light emitting device ([0025]).
Given that both Eum et al and Lee et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices comprising electron transport layers, and given that Eum et al does not explicitly prohibit the presence of other compounds in the electron transport layer, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the compound as taught by Lee et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such compounds in the electron transport layer in order to improve the efficiency, the driving voltage, and lifetime characteristics of the device disclosed by Eum et al by with a reasonable expectation of success.
The combined disclosures of Eum et al and Lee et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above; however, Eum et al does not disclose that the electron transport layer, i.e. the recited second electron transport layer, comprises a Li complex as recited in the present claims.
Kamalasanan et al discloses that doping electron transport material with n-dopant lithium quinolates such as (Abstract, [0021], [0043], and [0041] – Compounds 1, 2 and 5):
PNG
media_image10.png
116
140
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
144
114
media_image11.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image12.png
144
174
media_image12.png
Greyscale
,
i.e. Li metal complexes, improves the electron mobility of the electron transport material in organic light emitting devices (Abstract, [0015], and [0064]). Furthermore, compounds such as Compounds 1, 2, and 5 above have high thermal stability and high crystallization temperature, and are therefore, particularly favored for organic light emitting device because aggregation and crystallization affects device stability and lifetime ([0121]).
Given that both Eum et al and Kamalasanan et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices comprising electron transport layers, and given that Eum et al does not explicitly prohibit the presence of other compounds in the electron transport layer, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the Li complexes as taught by Kamalasanan et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such complexes in the electron transport layer of the organic light emitting device disclosed by Eum et al in order to improve device stability and lifetime with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, the combined disclosures of Eum et al. Lee et al, and Kamalasanan et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Eum et al discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image13.png
326
555
media_image13.png
Greyscale
,
which corresponds to Formula 1-1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image14.png
285
702
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, the combined disclosures of Eum et al. Lee et al, and Kamalasanan et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. In the compound disclosed by Lee et al, the groups represented by:
PNG
media_image15.png
114
190
media_image15.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image16.png
94
184
media_image16.png
Greyscale
,
both correspond to Formula 2B-1:
PNG
media_image17.png
142
178
media_image17.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 11, the combined disclosures of Eum et al. Lee et al, and Kamalasanan et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Eum et al discloses the compound:
PNG
media_image18.png
326
555
media_image18.png
Greyscale
,
which corresponds to Compound M-1-1 of the present claims.
Furthermore, as discussed above, Lee et al discloses the compound:
PNG
media_image8.png
302
642
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
This compound does not correspond to Formula M-2-18 of the present claims:
PNG
media_image19.png
146
416
media_image19.png
Greyscale
,
i.e. the claimed compound possesses two (2) phenylene linking groups not present in the compound disclosed by the reference. However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to the following formula ([0006] – Chemical Formula 1):
PNG
media_image20.png
266
344
media_image20.png
Greyscale
,
where L1 and L2 can be single bonds or unsubstituted arylene groups having 6 to 20 carbon atoms ([0010] and [0064]-[0065]). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where L1 and L2 are both C6 arylenes, i.e. phenylene groups, and therefore, the reference discloses compound M-2-18 of the claims.
Regarding claim 12, the combined disclosures of Eum et al. Lee et al, and Kamalasanan et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Eum et al discloses the compound:
PNG
media_image18.png
326
555
media_image18.png
Greyscale
.
The reference does not disclose that this compound has a glass transition temperature of about 110 to 160 ºC. However, the reference discloses a compound encompassed by the present claims, and therefore, the compound necessarily possesses a glass transition temperature within the recited range.
The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed compound, and therefore, the claimed physical property would naturally arise and be achieved by the compound. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position; and (2) it would be the Office's position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
Regarding claim 13, the combined disclosures of Eum et al. Lee et al, and Kamalasanan et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Eum et al discloses that the auxiliary electron transport layer, i.e. recited first electron transport layer, is between the light emitting layer and the electron transport layer, i.e. recited second electron transport layer.
Regarding claim 15, the combined disclosures of Eum et al. Lee et al, and Kamalasanan et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Eum et al discloses an organic light emitting device with the following layers:
anode / hole injection layer / hole transport layer / light emitting layer / auxiliary electron transport layer / electron transport layer / electron injection layer / cathode.
The hole transport and hole injection layers correspond to the recited hole transport region and are found between the anode, i.e. recited first electrode, and the light emitting layer. The auxiliary electron transport layer, the electron transport layer and the electron injection layer correspond to the recited electron transport region, and are between the light emitting layer and the cathode, i.e. recited second electrode.
Regarding claim 17, the combined disclosures of Eum et al. Lee et al, and Kamalasanan et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Eum et al discloses that the light emitting layer comprises a host and a dopant based on a metal complex, exemplified as Ir(ppy)3, i.e. a phosphorescent dopant ([0062] and [0268]).
Regarding claim 18, the combined disclosures of Eum et al. Lee et al, and Kamalasanan et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Eum et al discloses a display comprising the disclosed organic light emitting device ([0019]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eum et al (US 2018/0053900), Lee et al (US 2019/0386227), and Kamalasanan et al (US 2013/0015431) as applied to claims 1, 8, 10-13, 15, and 17-18 above, and in view of Yamada et al (US 2010/0033081).
The discussion with respect to of Eum et al. Lee et al, and Kamalasanan et al as set forth in Paragraph 6 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 16, the combined disclosures of Eum et al. Lee et al, and Kamalasanan et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Eum et al discloses that the organic light emitting device comprises a hole transport region, where the hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer and a hole transport layer. However, the reference does not disclose that the organic light emitting device comprises two (2) hole transport layers as recited in the present claims.
Yamada et al discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a pair of electrodes, a plurality of organic layers, including a light emitting layer, and two (2) hole transport layers ([0067]-[0068]). The second hole transport layer is laminated adjacent to the light emitting layer on the anode side of the light emitting layer, and the first hole transport layer is adjacent to the second hole transport layer ([0068]). A material having an ionization potential close to that of an anode is used in the first hole transport layer and a material having a wide bad gap is used in the second hole transport layer ([0069]). Accordingly, the reference discloses a first hole transport layer comprising a first hole transport material and a second hole transport layer comprising a second hole transport material different from the first. The arrangement of the two (2) hole transport layers results in holes being injected from the anode into the organic layer and entrapment of carriers and excitons in the light emitting layer ([0070]-[0071]). As a result reduction in driving voltage and improvement in external quantum efficiency is obtained ([0072]-[0073]).
Given that both Eum et al and Yamada et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices comprising hole transport layers, and given that Eum et al does not explicitly prohibit the presence of other layers in the organic light emitting device, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of two (2) hole transport layers as taught by Yamada et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize two (2) such hole transport layers in the organic light emitting device disclosed by Eum et al in order to reduce driving voltage and improve the external quantum efficiency of the device disclosed by Lee et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eum et al (US 2018/0053900), Lee et al (US 2019/0386227), and Kamalasanan et al (US 2013/0015431) as applied to claims 1, 8, 10-13, 15, and 17-18 above, and in view of Shin et al (US 2012/0049192).
The discussion with respect to of Eum et al. Lee et al, and Kamalasanan et al as set forth in Paragraph 6 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 19, the combined disclosures of Eum et al. Lee et al, and Kamalasanan et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. While Eum et al discloses a display device, the reference does not disclose that the display apparatus comprises a thin film transistor as recited in the present claims ([0019]).
Shin et al discloses a display apparatus comprising a thin film transistor (Abstract). The thin film transistor comprises a source electrode, a drain electrode and an active layer (Abstract). The transistor further comprises an organic light emitting device, where the first electrode of the organic light emitting device is connected to the drain electrode ([0048]). The reference discloses that the flat panel display apparatus comprising the thin film transistor easily provides uniform electrical characteristics and uniform display characteristics.
Given that both Eum et al and Shin et al are drawn to display devices comprising organic light emitting devices, and given that Eum et al does not explicitly prohibit other device elements, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the thin film transistor as taught by Shin et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device disclosed by Eum et al to include the thin film transistor disclosed by Shin et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eum et al (US 2018/0053900), Lee et al (US 2019/0386227), and Kamalasanan et al (US 2013/0015431) as applied to claims 1, 8, 10-13, 15, and 17-18 above, and in view of Ishida et al (US 2009/0108747).
The discussion with respect to of Eum et al. Lee et al, and Kamalasanan et al as set forth in Paragraph 6 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 20, the combined disclosures of Eum et al. Lee et al, and Kamalasanan et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. While Eum et al discloses a display device, the reference does not disclose that the display apparatus comprises a functional layer, where the functional layer is a color filter as recited in the present claims ([0019]).
Ishida et al discloses that an electroluminescent display, or an organic light diode display generally, includes a base substrate, an organic member, e.g. a color filter on the substate, a gas barrier layer, and an organic electroluminescent unit on the gas barrier layer ([0003]).
In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the display device disclosed by Eum et al to include a color filter, as doing so would amount to nothing more than use of a known display element for its intended use, in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected results.
Claims 1, 8, 10, 12-13, 15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eum et al (US 2018/0053900) in view of Pflumm et al (US 2011/0095282).
Regarding claim 1, Eum et al discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, i.e. a first electrode, a cathode, i.e. a second electrode, and an organic layer, i.e. an interlayer, disposed between the anode and cathode ([0018] and [0276] - Table 2). The organic layer comprises the following ([0276] - Table 2):
hole injection layer / hole transport layer / light emitting layer / auxiliary electron
transport layer / electron transport layer / electron injection layer,
where the auxiliary electron transport layer corresponds to the recited first electron transport layer, and the electron transport layer corresponds to the recited second electron transport layer. From the above stacking of layers, it is clear that the auxiliary electron transport layer or first electron transport layer and the electron transport layer or second electron transport layer are directly in contact with each other.
The auxiliary transport layer comprises the following compound ([0019], [0061], [0044], and Page 6 – Compound 5):
PNG
media_image1.png
326
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
This compounds corresponds to the compound represented by Formula 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
239
595
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where:
X12 and X13 are N;
X11 is C(R15), where R15 is H;
L11 and L12 are single bonds;
L13 is an unsubstituted benzene ring;
a11, a12, and a13 are one (1);
Ar11 and Ar12 are unsubstituted phenyl groups;
b11 and b12 are both one (1); and
R11 and R12 are hydrogen.
The group:
PNG
media_image3.png
110
206
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
is represented by Formula 1A-1:
PNG
media_image4.png
106
194
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where:
R13 and R14 are methyl groups, i.e. C1 alkyls; and
c11 and c13 are three (3).
The reference teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above; however, the reference does not disclose that the electron transport layer, i.e. the recited second electron transport layer, comprises a compound represented by Formula 2.
Pflumm et al discloses an organic electroluminescent device, where the electron transport layer comprises a triazine derivative as an electron transport material in combination with an organic alkali-metal compound (Abstract, [0007-[0008], and [0011]).
The triazine derivative is exemplified as (Page 5- Compound 2):
PNG
media_image21.png
228
558
media_image21.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by Formula 2:
PNG
media_image6.png
148
507
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
where:
X21 to X26 are N;
L21 and L22 are single bonds;
a21 and a22 are both one (1); and
Ar21, Ar22, Ar23 and Ar24 are unsubstituted phenyl groups.
CY21 corresponds to recited Formula 2AA-17:
PNG
media_image22.png
112
168
media_image22.png
Greyscale
.
The organic alkali compound is exemplified as ([0060], [0068], and [0073] - 179 and 180):
PNG
media_image23.png
136
158
media_image23.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image24.png
166
144
media_image24.png
Greyscale
,
and corresponds to the recited Li complex.
The combination of the triazine derivative and organic alkali-metal compound results in simultaneously obtaining high efficiencies and long lifetimes ([0007]), as well as reduced operating voltages ([0008]).
Given that both Eum et al and Pflumm et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices comprising electron transport layers, and given that Eum et al does not explicitly prohibit the presence of other compounds in the electron transport layer, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the compounds as taught by Pflumm et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such compounds in the electron transport layer of the organic light emitting device disclosed by Eum et al in order to improve the efficiency, lifetime, and operating voltage of the device with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, the combined disclosures of Eum et al and Pflumm et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Eum et al discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image13.png
326
555
media_image13.png
Greyscale
,
which corresponds to Formula 1-1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image14.png
285
702
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, the combined disclosures of Eum et al and Pflumm et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. In the compound disclosed by Pflumm et al, the groups represented by:
PNG
media_image15.png
114
190
media_image15.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image16.png
94
184
media_image16.png
Greyscale
,
both correspond to Formula 2B-1:
PNG
media_image17.png
142
178
media_image17.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 12, the combined disclosures of Eum et al and Pflumm et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Eum et al discloses the compound:
PNG
media_image18.png
326
555
media_image18.png
Greyscale
.
The reference does not disclose that this compound has a glass transition temperature of about 110 to 160 ºC. However, the reference discloses a compound encompassed by the present claims, and therefore, the compound necessarily possesses a glass transition temperature within the recited range.
The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed compound, and therefore, the claimed physical property would naturally arise and be achieved by the compound. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position; and (2) it would be the Office's position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
Regarding claim 13, the combined disclosures of Eum et al and Pflumm et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Eum et al discloses that the auxiliary electron transport layer, i.e. recited first electron transport layer, is between the light emitting layer and the electron transport layer, i.e. recited second electron transport layer.
Regarding claim 14, the combined disclosures of Eum et al and Pflumm et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Eum et al discloses that the electron transport layer, i.e. the recited second electron transport layer, comprises a Alq3, i.e. a metal containing material ([0276] – Table 2).
Regarding claim 15, the combined disclosures of Eum et al and Pflumm et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Eum et al discloses an organic light emitting device with the following layers:
anode / hole injection layer / hole transport layer / light emitting layer / auxiliary electron transport layer / electron transport layer / electron injection layer / cathode.
The hole transport and hole injection layers correspond to the recited hole transport region and are found between the anode, i.e. recited first electrode, and the light emitting layer. The auxiliary electron transport layer, the electron transport layer and the electron injection layer correspond to the recited electron transport region, and are between the light emitting layer and the cathode, i.e. recited second electrode.
Regarding claim 17, the combined disclosures of Eum et al and Pflumm et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Eum et al discloses that the light emitting layer comprises a host and a dopant based on a metal complex, exemplified as Ir(ppy)3, i.e. a phosphorescent dopant ([0062] and [0268]).
Regarding claim 18, the combined disclosures of Eum et al and Pflumm et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Eum et al discloses a display comprising the disclosed organic light emitting device ([0019]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eum et al (US 2018/0053900) and Pflumm et al (US 2011/0095282) as applied to claims 1, 8, 10, 12-13, 15, and 17-18 above, and in view of Yamada et al (US 2010/0033081).
The discussion with respect to Eum et al and Pflumm et al as set forth in Paragraph 10 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 16, the combined disclosures of Eum et al and Pflumm et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Eum et al discloses that the organic light emitting device comprises a hole transport region, where the hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer and a hole transport layer. However, the reference does not disclose that the organic light emitting device comprises two (2) hole transport layers as recited in the present claims.
Yamada et al discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a pair of electrodes, a plurality of organic layers, including a light emitting layer, and two (2) hole transport layers ([0067]-[0068]). The second hole transport layer is laminated adjacent to the light emitting layer on the anode side of the light emitting layer, and the first hole transport layer is adjacent to the second hole transport layer ([0068]). A material having an ionization potential close to that of an anode is used in the first hole transport layer and a material having a wide bad gap is used in the second hole transport layer ([0069]). Accordingly, the reference discloses a first hole transport layer comprising a first hole transport material and a second hole transport layer comprising a second hole transport material different from the first. The arrangement of the two (2) hole transport layers results in holes being injected from the anode into the organic layer and entrapment of carriers and excitons in the light emitting layer ([0070]-[0071]). As a result reduction in driving voltage and improvement in external quantum efficiency is obtained ([0072]-[0073]).
Given that both Eum et al and Yamada et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices comprising hole transport layers, and given that Eum et al does not explicitly prohibit the presence of other layers in the organic light emitting device, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of two (2) hole transport layers as taught by Yamada et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize two (2) such hole transport layers in the organic light emitting device disclosed by Eum et al in order to reduce driving voltage and improve the external quantum efficiency of the device disclosed by Pflumm et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eum et al (US 2018/0053900) and Pflumm et al (US 2011/0095282) as applied to claims 1, 8, 10, 12-13, 15, and 17-18 above, and in view of Shin et al (US 2012/0049192).
The discussion with respect to Eum et al and Pflumm et al as set forth in Paragraph 10 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 19, the combined disclosures of Eum et al and Pflumm et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. While Eum et al discloses a display device, the reference does not disclose that the display apparatus comprises a thin film transistor as recited in the present claims ([0019]).
Shin et al discloses a display apparatus comprising a thin film transistor (Abstract). The thin film transistor comprises a source electrode, a drain electrode and an active layer (Abstract). The transistor further comprises an organic light emitting device, where the first electrode of the organic light emitting device is connected to the drain electrode ([0048]). The reference discloses that the flat panel display apparatus comprising the thin film transistor easily provides uniform electrical characteristics and uniform display characteristics.
Given that both Eum et al and Shin et al are drawn to display devices comprising organic light emitting devices, and given that Eum et al does not explicitly prohibit other device elements, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the thin film transistor as taught by Shin et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device disclosed by Eum et al to include the thin film transistor disclosed by Shin et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eum et al (US 2018/0053900) and Pflumm et al (US 2011/0095282) as applied to claims 1, 8, 10, 12-13, 15, and 17-18 above, and in view of Ishida et al (US 2009/0108747).
The discussion with respect to Eum et al and Pflumm et al as set forth in Paragraph 10 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 20, the combined disclosures of Eum et al and Pflumm et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. While Eum et al discloses a display device, the reference does not disclose that the display apparatus comprises a functional layer, where the functional layer is a color filter as recited in the present claims ([0019]).
Ishida et al discloses that an electroluminescent display, or an organic light diode display generally, includes a base substrate, an organic member, e.g. a color filter on the substate, a gas barrier layer, and an organic electroluminescent unit on the gas barrier layer ([0003]).
In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the display device disclosed by Eum et al to include a color filter, as doing so would amount to nothing more than use of a known display element for its intended use, in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the claim objection and 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejection set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
Applicants argue that Eum et al and Lee do not disclose that: (i) the first and second electron transport layers are in direct contact with each other; (ii) CY21 is a group represented by one of Formulas 2AA-17 to 2AA-22; and (iii) the second electron transport layer comprises a lithium complex. However, firstly, as discussed in the rejections above, Eum et al discloses an organic light emitting device with the following stacking of layers:
hole injection layer / hole transport layer / light emitting layer / auxiliary electron
transport layer / electron transport layer / electron injection layer.
The auxiliary electron transport layer corresponds to the recited first electron transport layer, and the electron transport layer corresponds to the recited second electron transport layer. From the above stacking of layers it is clear that the auxiliary electron transport layer (first electron transport layer) and the electron transport layer (second electron transport layer) are directly in contact with each other.
Secondly, as discussed in the rejections above, Lee et al discloses: the following compounds:
PNG
media_image5.png
382
456
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
302
642
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
In these compounds CY21 corresponds to recited Formulas 2A-20 and 2AA-19:
PNG
media_image7.png
130
150
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image9.png
110
164
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
respectively.
Thirdly, regarding the Li complex, as set forth in the rejections above, this deficiency in Eum et al is remedied by Kamalasanan et al. Specifically, the reference discloses that lithium complexes such as:
PNG
media_image10.png
116
140
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
144
114
media_image11.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image12.png
144
174
media_image12.png
Greyscale
,
improve the electron mobility of the electron transport material of the electron transport layer Additionally, these compounds have high thermal stability and high crystallization temperature, and are therefore, particularly favored for organic light emitting device because aggregation and crystallization affects device stability and lifetime.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER C. KOLLIAS whose telephone number is (571)-270-3869. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM EST.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER C KOLLIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights