DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the communication filed on 24 November 2025.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 24 November 2025 has been entered.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4-8, 11-16, and 18-20 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 Objections
Claim 20 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20 contains a typo and should read: “The white light emitting device according to claim 16”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
“The essential inquiry pertaining to this requirement is whether the claims set out and circumscribe a particular subject matter with a reasonable degree of clarity and particularity. ‘As the statutory language of “particular[ity]” and “distinct[ness]” indicates, claims are required to be cast in clear—as opposed to ambiguous, vague, indefinite—terms. It is the claims that notify the public of what is within the protections of the patent, and what is not.’” MPEP § 2173.02(II) (quoting In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Regarding claim 1: claim 1 states, in relevant part: “and the red dopant, the yellowish- green dopant, and the green dopant include a phosphorescent dopant.” The cited phrasing is susceptible to more than one plausible construction. Namely, it is unclear whether the limitation refers to a device wherein (1) each of the red, yellowish-green, and green dopants include a phosphorescent dopant, or rather (2) one of the red, yellowish-green, and green dopants include a phosphorescent dopant. For the purposes of examination, the cited phrasing has been interpreted in accordance with interpretation (1).
Claims 4-7, which depend from claim 1, are rejected under § 112(b) for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 8: claim 8 states, in relevant part: “and the red dopant, the yellowish- green dopant, and the green dopant include a phosphorescent dopant.” The cited phrasing is susceptible to more than one plausible construction. Namely, it is unclear whether the limitation refers to a device wherein (1) each of the red, yellowish-green, and green dopants include a phosphorescent dopant, or rather (2) one of the red, yellowish-green, and green dopants include a phosphorescent dopant. For the purposes of examination, the cited phrasing has been interpreted in accordance with interpretation (1).
Claims 11-15, which depend from claim 8, are rejected under § 112(b) for the same reasons as claim 8.
Regarding claim 15: claim 15 states, in relevant part: “further comprising a color filter layer and a thin-film transistor between the substrate and the first electrode . . . .” The cited phrasing is susceptible to more than one plausible construction. Namely, it is unclear whether the limitation refers to a device wherein (1) both of the color filter layer and the thin-film transistor are between the substrate and the first electrode, or (2) only the thin film transistor is between the substrate and the first electrode. For the purposes of examination, the cited phrasing has been interpreted in accordance with interpretation (1).
Regarding claim 16: claim 16 states, in relevant part: “and the red dopant, the yellowish- green dopant, and the green dopant include a phosphorescent dopant.” The cited phrasing is susceptible to more than one plausible construction. Namely, it is unclear whether the limitation refers to a device wherein (1) each of the red, yellowish-green, and green dopants include a phosphorescent dopant, or rather (2) one of the red, yellowish-green, and green dopants include a phosphorescent dopant. For the purposes of examination, the cited phrasing has been interpreted in accordance with interpretation (1).
Claims 18-20, which depend from claim 16, are rejected under § 112(b) for the same reasons as claim 16.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims, or present a sufficient showing that the claims comply with the statutory requirements.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 5: claim 1 recites “wherein the first blue dopant is a fluorescent dopant, and the red dopant, the yellowish- green dopant and the green dopant include a phosphorescent dopant.” “A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.” MPEP § 608.01(n)(III). Thus, claim 5, which depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein the first blue dopant includes a fluorescent dopant, and the green dopant includes a phosphorescent dopant,” consistent with the interpretation noted above with respect to the § 112(b) rejection of claim 1, is not a proper dependent claim because it fails to further limit the claim from which it depends.
Regarding claim 12: claim 8 recites “wherein the first blue dopant is a fluorescent dopant, and the red dopant, the yellowish- green dopant and the green dopant include a phosphorescent dopant.” “A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.” MPEP § 608.01(n)(III). Thus, claim 12, which depends from claim 8 and recites “wherein the first blue dopant includes a fluorescent dopant, and the green dopant includes a phosphorescent dopant,” consistent with the interpretation noted above with respect to the § 112(b) rejection of claim 8, is not a proper dependent claim because it fails to further limit the claim from which it depends.
Regarding claim 19: claim 16 recites “wherein the first blue dopant is a fluorescent dopant, and the red dopant, the yellowish- green dopant and the green dopant include a phosphorescent dopant.” “A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.” MPEP § 608.01(n)(III). Thus, claim 19, which depends from claim 16 and recites “wherein the first blue dopant includes a fluorescent dopant, and the green dopant includes a phosphorescent dopant,” consistent with the interpretation noted above with respect to the § 112(b) rejection of claim 16, is not a proper dependent claim because it fails to further limit the claim from which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-8, 12-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0287985 (published Oct. 5, 2017) (hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kim discloses: A white light emitting device comprising:
a first electrode (FIG. 3, first electrode 202, [0071]) and a second electrode (FIG. 3, second electrode 204, [0071]) facing each other over a substrate (FIG. 3, depicting wherein the first and second electrodes 202, 204 face each other over a substrate 201, [0071]);
a first stack (FIG. 3, first emission part 210, [0071]) disposed between the first electrode and a first charge generation layer (FIG. 3, depicting wherein the first emission part 210 is disposed between the first electrode 202 and a first CGL 240, [0111]) and including a first emission layer having a first blue dopant (FIG. 3, first EML 214 is a blue EML including a first blue fluorescent dopant, [0083], [0123]); and
a second stack (FIG. 3, second emission part 220, [0086]) disposed between the first charge generation layer and the second electrode (FIG. 3, depicting wherein the second emission part 220 is disposed between the first CGL 240 and the second electrode 204),
the second stack (FIG. 3, second emission part 220) comprising
a second emission layer including a red dopant (FIG. 3, second EML 223 which is a red EML including a red phosphorescent dopant, [0097], [0108]),
a third emission layer including a yellowish-green dopant (FIG. 3, third EML 224 which is a yellow-green EML including a yellow-green phosphorescent dopant, [0097], [0109]), and
a fourth emission layer including a green dopant (FIG. 3, fourth EML 225 which is a green EML including a green phosphorescent dopant, [0097], [0109]),
wherein wavelengths are gradually shortened in an order of the second emission layer, the third emission layer and the fourth emission layer sequentially stacked (FIG. 3, depicting wherein the wavelengths are gradually shortened in an order of the second EML 223, third EML 224, and fourth EML 225 sequentially stacked), and
wherein the first blue dopant is a fluorescent dopant (FIG. 3, first EML 214 is a blue EML including a first blue fluorescent dopant, [0083], [0123]), and
the red dopant, the yellowish-green dopant, and the green dopant include a phosphorescent dopant (FIG. 3, each of the second EML 223, third EML 224, and fourth EML 225 include a phosphorescent dopant, [0097], [0108], [0109]).
Applicant further claims “wherein the first blue dopant has a triplet energy level equal to or higher than a triplet energy level of the green dopant, wherein the triplet energy level of the green dopant is higher than a triplet energy level of the yellowish-green dopant, and the triplet energy level of the yellowish-green dopant is higher than a triplet energy level of the red dopant.”
When the structure recited in a reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP § 2112. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” Id. (citing In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 U.S.P.Q. 430, 433 (C.C.P.A. 1977)). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” Id. (quoting In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 U.S.P.Q.2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). “Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product.” Id. (citing In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255).
In the instant case, Kim discloses a light emitting device structure that is identical to the light emitting device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 1, and thus necessarily possesses the properties of the light emitting device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 1, including wherein the first blue dopant has a triplet energy level equal to or higher than a triplet energy level of the green dopant, wherein the triplet energy level of the green dopant is higher than a triplet energy level of the yellowish-green dopant, and the triplet energy level of the yellowish-green dopant is higher than a triplet energy level of the red dopant. Compare, e.g., FIGS. 1-5, [0041]-[0290], and Claims 1-20 of Kim with FIGS. 1, 2, 6, 7, [0019]-[0125], and Claims 1-20 of Applicant’s disclosure.
Accordingly, Kim discloses a light emitting device that necessarily possesses the properties of the light emitting device structure claimed in Applicant' s claim 1, and thus anticipates claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Kim further discloses wherein the first blue dopant includes a fluorescent dopant (FIG. 3, the first EML 214 is a blue EML including a first blue fluorescent dopant, [0083], [0123]), and the green dopant includes a phosphorescent dopant (FIG. 3, the fourth EML 225 is a green EML including a phosphorescent dopant, [0097], [0108], [0109]).
Regarding claim 6, Kim further discloses a second charge generation layer (FIG. 3, second CGL 250, [0126]) and a third stack (FIG. 3, third emission part 230, [0071]) provided on the second stack (FIG. 3, depicting wherein the third emission part 230 is provided on the second emission part 220), the third stack comprising a fifth emission layer (FIG. 3, fifth EML 234, [0114]) to emit light of a same color as the first emission layer (FIG. 3, the fifth EML 234 is a blue EML including a second blue fluorescent dopant, [0119], [0123]).
Regarding claim 7, Kim further discloses wherein the fifth emission layer includes a second blue dopant that is the same as the first blue dopant (FIG. 3, the fifth EML 234 is a blue EML including a second blue fluorescent dopant, [0119], [0123]).
Regarding independent claim 8, Kim discloses: A light emitting display device comprising:
a substrate (FIG. 1, substrate 101, [0042]) comprising a plurality of subpixels (FIG. 3, [0042]: “The organic light emitting display device 1000 may include a plurality of pixels P.”);
a first electrode (FIG. 1, first electrode 102, [0042]) at each of the plurality of subpixels on the substrate (FIG. 1, depicting an exemplary pixel P of a plurality of pixels, wherein the first electrode 102 is at the pixel);
a second electrode (FIG. 1, second electrode 104, [0042]) disposed over the plurality of subpixels to be opposite to the first electrode (FIG. 1, depicting wherein the second electrode 104 is disposed over the exemplary pixel P of a plurality of pixels, wherein the second electrode 104 is opposite to the first electrode 102);
a first stack (FIG. 3, first emission part 210, [0071]) between the first electrode and a first charge generation layer (FIG. 3, depicting wherein the first emission part 210 is disposed between the first electrode 202 and a first CGL 240, [0111]) over the plurality of subpixels (FIG. 1, depicting wherein the emission part 1180 is disposed over an exemplary pixel P of a plurality of pixels), and including a first emission layer having a first blue dopant (FIG. 3, first EML 214 is a blue EML including a first blue fluorescent dopant, [0083], [0123]); and
a second stack (FIG. 3, second emission part 220, [0086]) between the first charge generation layer and the second electrode (FIG. 3, depicting wherein the second emission part 220 is disposed between the first CGL 240 and the second electrode 204) over the plurality of subpixels (FIG. 1, depicting wherein the emission part 1180 is disposed over an exemplary pixel P of a plurality of pixels), and including
a second emission layer including a red dopant (FIG. 3, second EML 223 which is a red EML including a red phosphorescent dopant, [0097], [0108]),
a third emission layer including a yellowish-green dopant (FIG. 3, third EML 224 which is a yellow-green EML including a yellow-green phosphorescent dopant, [0097], [0109]), and
a fourth emission layer including a green dopant (FIG. 3, fourth EML 225 which is a green EML including a green phosphorescent dopant, [0097], [0109]),
wherein wavelengths are gradually shortened in an order of the second emission layer, the third emission layer and the fourth emission layer sequentially stacked (FIG. 3, depicting wherein the wavelengths are gradually shortened in an order of the second EML 223, third EML 224, and fourth EML 225 sequentially stacked), and
wherein the first blue dopant includes a fluorescent dopant (FIG. 3, first EML 214 is a blue EML including a first blue fluorescent dopant, [0083], [0123]), and
the red dopant and the yellowish-green dopant and the green dopant include a phosphorescent dopant (FIG. 3, each of the second EML 223, third EML 224, and fourth EML 225 include a phosphorescent dopant, [0097], [0108], [0109]).
Applicant further claims “wherein the first blue dopant has a triplet energy level equal to or higher than a triplet energy level of the green dopant, wherein the triplet energy level of the green dopant is higher than a triplet energy level of the yellowish-green dopant, and the triplet energy level of the yellowish-green dopant is higher than a triplet energy level of the red dopant.”
When the structure recited in a reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP § 2112. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” Id. (citing In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 U.S.P.Q. 430, 433 (C.C.P.A. 1977)). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” Id. (quoting In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 U.S.P.Q.2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). “Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product.” Id. (citing In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255).
In the instant case, Kim discloses a light emitting device structure that is identical to the light emitting device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 8, and thus necessarily possesses the properties of the light emitting device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 8, including wherein the first blue dopant has a triplet energy level equal to or higher than a triplet energy level of the green dopant, wherein the triplet energy level of the green dopant is higher than a triplet energy level of the yellowish-green dopant, and the triplet energy level of the yellowish-green dopant is higher than a triplet energy level of the red dopant. Compare, e.g., FIGS. 1-5, [0041]-[0290], and Claims 1-20 of Kim with FIGS. 1, 2, 6, 7, [0019]-[0125], and Claims 1-20 of Applicant’s disclosure.
Accordingly, Kim discloses a light emitting device that necessarily possesses the properties of the light emitting device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 8, and thus anticipates claim 8.
Regarding claim 12, Kim further discloses wherein the first blue dopant includes a fluorescent dopant (FIG. 3, the first EML 214 is a blue EML including a first blue fluorescent dopant, [0083], [0123]), and the green dopant includes a phosphorescent dopant (FIG. 3, the fourth EML 225 is a green EML including a phosphorescent dopant, [0097], [0108], [0109]).
Regarding claim 13, Kim further discloses a second charge generation layer (FIG. 3, second CGL 250, [0126]) and a third stack (FIG. 3, third emission part 230, [0071]) provided on the second stack (FIG. 3, depicting wherein the third emission part 230 is provided on the second emission part 220), wherein the third stack includes a fifth emission layer (FIG. 3, fifth EML 234, [0114]) to emit light of a same color as the first emission layer (FIG. 3, the fifth EML 234 is a blue EML including a second blue fluorescent dopant, [0119], [0123]).
Regarding claim 14, Kim further discloses wherein the fifth emission layer includes a second blue dopant that is the same as the first blue dopant (FIG. 3, the fifth EML 234 is a blue EML including a second blue fluorescent dopant, [0119], [0123]).
Regarding claim 15, Kim further discloses a color filter layer (FIG. 1, color layer 1145, [0050]) and a thin-film transistor (FIG. 1, depicting a TFT, [0043]) between the substrate and the first electrode (FIG. 1, depicting wherein each of the color layer 1145 and the TFT are between the substrate 101 and the first electrode 102), wherein the thin-film transistor is connected to the first electrode (FIG. 1, depicting wherein the TFT is connected to the first electrode 102, [0043]).
Regarding independent claim 16, Kim discloses: A white light emitting device comprising:
an anode electrode (FIG. 3, first electrode 202, [0071], [0073]) and a cathode electrode (FIG. 3, second electrode 204, [0071], [0074]) spaced apart from each other (FIG. 3, depicting wherein the first electrode 202 and second electrode 204 are spaced apart from each other);
a first hole-transport-related common layer (FIG. 3, first HTL 212, [0079]) disposed on the anode electrode (FIG. 3, depicting wherein the first HTL 212 is disposed on the first electrode 202);
a blue emission layer including a first blue dopant (FIG. 3, the first EML 214 is a blue EML including a first blue fluorescent dopant, [0083], [0123]) and disposed on the first hole-transport-related common layer (FIG. 3, depicting wherein the first EML 214 is disposed on the first HTL 212);
a first electron-transport-related common layer (FIG. 3, first ETL 216, [0079]) disposed on the blue emission layer (FIG. 3, depicting wherein the first ETL 216 is disposed on the first EML 214);
a first charge generation layer (FIG. 3, first CGL 240, [0111]) disposed on the first electron-transport-related common layer (FIG. 3, depicting wherein the first CGL 240 is disposed on the first ETL 216);
a second hole-transport-related common layer (FIG. 3, second HTL 222, [0086]) disposed on the first charge generation layer (FIG. 3, depicting wherein the second HTL 222 is disposed on the first CGL 240);
and first, second, and third emission layers (FIG. 3, first EML 223, second EML 224, and third EML 225, [0086]) sequentially disposed between the first charge generation layer and the cathode electrode (FIG. 3, depicting wherein the EMLs 223/224/225 are sequentially disposed between the first CGL 240 and the second electrode 204) and respectively including
a red dopant (FIG. 3, second EML 223 which is a red EML including a red phosphorescent dopant, [0097], [0108]),
a yellowish-green dopant (FIG. 3, third EML 224 which is a yellow-green EML including a yellow-green phosphorescent dopant, [0097], [0109]) and
a green dopant (FIG. 3, fourth EML 225 which is a green EML including a green phosphorescent dopant, [0097], [0109]),
wherein wavelengths are gradually shortened in an order of the second emission layer, the third emission layer and a fourth emission layer (FIG. 3, depicting wherein the wavelengths are gradually shortened in an order of the second EML 223, third EML 224, and fourth EML 225), and
wherein the first blue dopant is a fluorescent dopant (FIG. 3, the first EML 214 is a blue EML including a first blue fluorescent dopant, [0083], [0123]), and
the red dopant, the yellowish-green dopant and the green dopant include a phosphorescent dopant (FIG. 3, each of the second EML 223, third EML 224, and fourth EML 225 include a phosphorescent dopant, [0097], [0108], [0109]).
Applicant further claims “wherein the first blue dopant has a triplet energy level equal to or higher than a triplet energy level of the green dopant, wherein the triplet energy level of the green dopant is higher than a triplet energy level of the yellowish-green dopant, and the triplet energy level of the yellowish-green dopant is higher than a triplet energy level of the red dopant.”
When the structure recited in a reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP § 2112. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” Id. (citing In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 U.S.P.Q. 430, 433 (C.C.P.A. 1977)). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” Id. (quoting In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 U.S.P.Q.2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). “Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product.” Id. (citing In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255).
In the instant case, Kim discloses a light emitting device structure that is identical to the light emitting device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 16, and thus necessarily possesses the properties of the light emitting device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 16, including wherein the first blue dopant has a triplet energy level equal to or higher than a triplet energy level of the green dopant, wherein the triplet energy level of the green dopant is higher than a triplet energy level of the yellowish-green dopant, and the triplet energy level of the yellowish-green dopant is higher than a triplet energy level of the red dopant. Compare, e.g., FIGS. 1-5, [0041]-[0290], and Claims 1-20 of Kim with FIGS. 1, 2, 6, 7, [0019]-[0125], and Claims 1-20 of Applicant’s disclosure.
Accordingly, Kim discloses a light emitting device that necessarily possesses the properties of the light emitting device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 16, and thus anticipates claim 16.
Regarding claim 19, Kim further discloses wherein the first blue dopant includes a fluorescent dopant (FIG. 3, the first EML 214 is a blue EML including a first blue fluorescent dopant, [0083], [0123]), and the green dopant includes a phosphorescent dopant (FIG. 3, the fourth EML 225 is a green EML including a phosphorescent dopant, [0097], [0108], [0109]).
Regarding claim 20, Kim further discloses a second charge generation layer (FIG. 3, second CGL 250, [0126]) and a fifth emission layer (FIG. 3, fifth EML 234, [0114]) to emit light of a same color as the first emission layer (FIG. 3, the fifth EML 234 is a blue EML including a second blue fluorescent dopant, [0119], [0123]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0308209 (filed Mar. 25, 2020) (hereinafter “Yoon”).
Regarding claim 4, Kim does not specifically disclose wherein the first blue dopant includes a boron-based compound.
In [0119] and [0383]-[0384], however, Yoon discloses fluorescent blue dopant materials including a boron-based compound, among other materials. (See Compound 12-3).
Accordingly, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select a known fluorescent blue dopant material including a boron-based compound, as shown by Yoon in [0119] and [0383]-[0384], since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.07 (citing In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197 (C.C.P.A. 1960)). One would be motivated to choose a boron-based compound over other materials depending on manufacturing considerations such as cost of materials or time it takes to process the layer.
Regarding claim 11, Kim does not specifically disclose wherein the first blue dopant includes a boron-based compound.
In [0119] and [0383]-[0384], however, Yoon discloses fluorescent blue dopant materials including a boron-based compound, among other materials. (See Compound 12-3).
Accordingly, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select a known fluorescent blue dopant material including a boron-based compound, as shown by Yoon in [0119] and [0383]-[0384], since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.07 (citing In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197 (C.C.P.A. 1960)). One would be motivated to choose a boron-based compound over other materials depending on manufacturing considerations such as cost of materials or time it takes to process the layer.
Regarding claim 18, Kim does not specifically disclose wherein the first blue dopant includes a boron-based compound.
In [0119] and [0383]-[0384], however, Yoon discloses fluorescent blue dopant materials including a boron-based compound, among other materials. (See Compound 12-3).
Accordingly, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select a known fluorescent blue dopant material including a boron-based compound, as shown by Yoon in [0119] and [0383]-[0384], since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.07 (citing In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197 (C.C.P.A. 1960)). One would be motivated to choose a boron-based compound over other materials depending on manufacturing considerations such as cost of materials or time it takes to process the layer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Publication Nos.: 2021/0013444 (filed Feb. 19, 2019); 2019/0131556 (published May 2, 2019); 2019/0006631 (published Jan. 3, 2019); 2015/0034923 (published Feb. 5, 2015); 2015/0155513 (published June 4, 2015).
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 ADAM D WEILAND whose telephone number is (703)756-4760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Steven Gauthier can be reached on (571)270-0373. 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.
/ADAM D WEILAND/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813