DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the communication filed on 5 May 2026.
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, 6-8, 13-16, and 20-25 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 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 23 contains a typo and should read: “disposed between [[a]] the substrate”. 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 24 and 25 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 24: claim 24 recites the limitation “the second electrode.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 25: claim 25 states, in relevant part: “wherein a thickness of the second protective layer at the white subpixel is greater than a thickness of the second protective layer at the red subpixel, and/or the green subpixel, and/or the blue subpixel.” The cited phrasing is susceptible to more than one plausible construction. Namely, it is unclear whether the limitation “and/or” refers to a configuration wherein (1) the phrase “and/or” is inclusive (e.g., the thickness of the second protective layer at the white subpixel is greater than the thickness at the red subpixel, but not necessarily greater than the thickness at the blue subpixel) or (2) the phrase “and/or” is exclusive (e.g., the thickness of the second protective layer at the white subpixel is greater than the thickness at the red subpixel alone, but not the blue or green subpixels). For the purposes of examination, the cited phrasing has been interpreted in accordance with interpretation (1). The Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant only discloses a single configuration of relative thicknesses as illustrated in FIG. 6.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims, or present a sufficient showing that the claims comply with the statutory requirements.
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 1, 6-8, 13-16, and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0287985 (published Oct. 5, 2017) (hereinafter “Kim 1”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0119134 (filed Oct. 8, 2020) (hereinafter “Kim 2”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kim 1 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 emission layer singly consists of the first blue dopant as a dopant, and the first blue dopant is a fluorescent dopant (FIG. 3, depicting wherein the first EML 214 is a blue EML that singly consists of a first blue fluorescent dopant as a dopant, [0083], [0123]),
wherein each of the red dopant, the yellowish-green dopant, and the green dopant is a phosphorescent dopant comprising a metal complex compound (FIG. 3, each of the second EML 223, third EML 224, and fourth EML 225 include a phosphorescent dopant comprising a metal complex compound, [0097], [0108], [0109]).
Kim 1 does not specifically disclose wherein first blue dopant comprises a boron-based compound of non-metal.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim 2 discloses a light emitting material composition ([0032]: “According to one embodiment, the present disclosure provides a host/dopant combination, i.e., a combination of the host compound represented by formula 1 and the dopant compound represented by formula 2. Also, the present disclosure provides an organic electroluminescent device comprising the host/dopant combination.”), wherein the light emitting material emits blue light, and further wherein the light emitting material composition singly consists of a first blue dopant as a dopant, and the first blue dopant is a fluorescent dopant comprising a boron-based compound of non-metal ([0050]: “The light-emitting material according to one embodiment comprises at least one boron derivative represented by formula 2. For example, the compound represented by formula 2 may be a fluorescent dopant, e.g., a fluorescent blue dopant.”). Regarding the light emitting material composition, in [0004], Kim 2 states: “For example, boron derivatives may be used as a dopant instead of pyrene derivatives in fluorescent blue light-emitting OLEDs. When a boron derivative is used, it is possible to increase color purity, which is considered to be due to a rigid structure.” Kim 2 further states in [0007]: “The present inventors have tried to improve the performance of an organic electroluminescent device by combining a specific light-emitting material containing a boron derivative with a specific light-emitting material having long lifespan properties. As a result of intensive study, specifically, the present inventors have completed the present invention by finding that the above-described objective is achieved from a plurality of light-emitting materials comprising at least one of first compounds and at least one of second compounds, wherein the first compound is represented by the following formula 1, and the second compound is represented by the following formula 2 . . . .”
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosed light emitting device of Kim 1 by substituting the blue light emitting composition of Kim 2 in order to improve color purity and lifespan of the light emitting layer. See Kim 2 [0004], [0007].
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 1 in view of Kim 2 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 1, and [0001]-[0098] and Claims 1-10 of Kim 2 with FIGS. 1, 2, 6, 7, [0019]-[0125], and Claims 1-20 of Applicant’s disclosure.
Accordingly, Kim 1 in view of Kim 2 discloses a light emitting device that necessarily possesses the properties of the light emitting device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 1, and thus renders obvious claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Kim 1 in view of Kim 2 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 1 in view of Kim 2 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 1 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 emission layer singly consists of the first blue dopant as a dopant, and the first blue dopant is a fluorescent dopant (FIG. 3, depicting wherein the first EML 214 is a blue EML that singly consists of a first blue fluorescent dopant as a dopant, [0083], [0123]),
wherein each of the red dopant, the yellowish-green dopant, and the green dopant is a phosphorescent dopant comprising a metal complex compound (FIG. 3, each of the second EML 223, third EML 224, and fourth EML 225 include a phosphorescent dopant comprising a metal complex compound, [0097], [0108], [0109]).
Kim 1 does not specifically disclose wherein first blue dopant comprises a boron-based compound of non-metal.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim 2 discloses a light emitting material composition ([0032]: “According to one embodiment, the present disclosure provides a host/dopant combination, i.e., a combination of the host compound represented by formula 1 and the dopant compound represented by formula 2. Also, the present disclosure provides an organic electroluminescent device comprising the host/dopant combination.”), wherein the light emitting material emits blue light, and further wherein the light emitting material composition singly consists of a first blue dopant as a dopant, and the first blue dopant is a fluorescent dopant comprising a boron-based compound of non-metal ([0050]: “The light-emitting material according to one embodiment comprises at least one boron derivative represented by formula 2. For example, the compound represented by formula 2 may be a fluorescent dopant, e.g., a fluorescent blue dopant.”). Regarding the light emitting material composition, in [0004], Kim 2 states: “For example, boron derivatives may be used as a dopant instead of pyrene derivatives in fluorescent blue light-emitting OLEDs. When a boron derivative is used, it is possible to increase color purity, which is considered to be due to a rigid structure.” Kim 2 further states in [0007]: “The present inventors have tried to improve the performance of an organic electroluminescent device by combining a specific light-emitting material containing a boron derivative with a specific light-emitting material having long lifespan properties. As a result of intensive study, specifically, the present inventors have completed the present invention by finding that the above-described objective is achieved from a plurality of light-emitting materials comprising at least one of first compounds and at least one of second compounds, wherein the first compound is represented by the following formula 1, and the second compound is represented by the following formula 2 . . . .”
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosed light emitting device of Kim 1 by substituting the blue light emitting composition of Kim 2 in order to improve color purity and lifespan of the light emitting layer. See Kim 2 [0004], [0007].
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 1 in view of Kim 2 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 1, and [0001]-[0098] and Claims 1-10 of Kim 2 with FIGS. 1, 2, 6, 7, [0019]-[0125], and Claims 1-20 of Applicant’s disclosure.
Accordingly, Kim 1 in view of Kim 2 discloses a light emitting device that necessarily possesses the properties of the light emitting device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 8, and thus renders obvious claim 8.
Regarding claim 13, Kim 1 in view of Kim 2 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 1 in view of Kim 2 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 1 in view of Kim 2 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 1 discloses: A light emitting display device comprising:
a substrate (FIGS. 1/3, substrate 101/201, [0071]) comprising a red subpixel, a green subpixel, a blue subpixel and a white subpixel (FIGS. 1/3, [0042]: “A pixel P denotes an area corresponding to a minimum unit where light is actually emitted, and may be referred to as a subpixel or a pixel area. Also, a plurality of pixels P may constitute a minimum group for realizing white light. For example, three pixels may constitute one group, namely, a red pixel, a green pixel, and a blue pixel may constitute one group. Alternatively, four pixels may constitute one group, namely, a red pixel, a green pixel, a blue pixel, and a white pixel may constitute one group.”);
an anode electrode (FIG. 1/3, first electrode 102/202, [0071], [0073]) at each of the red subpixel, the green subpixel, the blue subpixel and the white subpixel on the substrate (FIGS. 1/3, depicting a first electrode 102/202 at each pixel P, [0042], [0073]);
a cathode electrode (FIGS. 1/3, second electrode 104/204, [0071], [0074]) over the red subpixel, the green subpixel, the blue subpixel and the white subpixel (FIGS. 1/3, depicting a second electrode 104/204 at each pixel P, [0042], [0074]), the cathode electrode spaced apart from the anode electrode (FIGS. 1/3, depicting wherein the first electrode 102/202 and second electrode 104/204 are spaced apart);
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 emission layer singly consists of the first blue dopant as a dopant, and the first blue dopant is a fluorescent dopant (FIG. 3, depicting wherein the first EML 214 is a blue EML that singly consists of a first blue fluorescent dopant as a dopant, [0083], [0123]),
wherein each of the red dopant, the yellowish-green dopant, and the green dopant is a phosphorescent dopant comprising a metal complex compound (FIG. 3, each of the second EML 223, third EML 224, and fourth EML 225 include a phosphorescent dopant comprising a metal complex compound, [0097], [0108], [0109]).
Kim 1 does not specifically disclose wherein first blue dopant comprises a boron-based compound of non-metal.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim 2 discloses a light emitting material composition ([0032]: “According to one embodiment, the present disclosure provides a host/dopant combination, i.e., a combination of the host compound represented by formula 1 and the dopant compound represented by formula 2. Also, the present disclosure provides an organic electroluminescent device comprising the host/dopant combination.”), wherein the light emitting material emits blue light, and further wherein the light emitting material composition singly consists of a first blue dopant as a dopant, and the first blue dopant is a fluorescent dopant comprising a boron-based compound of non-metal ([0050]: “The light-emitting material according to one embodiment comprises at least one boron derivative represented by formula 2. For example, the compound represented by formula 2 may be a fluorescent dopant, e.g., a fluorescent blue dopant.”). Regarding the light emitting material composition, in [0004], Kim 2 states: “For example, boron derivatives may be used as a dopant instead of pyrene derivatives in fluorescent blue light-emitting OLEDs. When a boron derivative is used, it is possible to increase color purity, which is considered to be due to a rigid structure.” Kim 2 further states in [0007]: “The present inventors have tried to improve the performance of an organic electroluminescent device by combining a specific light-emitting material containing a boron derivative with a specific light-emitting material having long lifespan properties. As a result of intensive study, specifically, the present inventors have completed the present invention by finding that the above-described objective is achieved from a plurality of light-emitting materials comprising at least one of first compounds and at least one of second compounds, wherein the first compound is represented by the following formula 1, and the second compound is represented by the following formula 2 . . . .”
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosed light emitting device of Kim 1 by substituting the blue light emitting composition of Kim 2 in order to improve color purity and lifespan of the light emitting layer. See Kim 2 [0004], [0007].
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 1 in view of Kim 2 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 1, and [0001]-[0098] and Claims 1-10 of Kim 2 with FIGS. 1, 2, 6, 7, [0019]-[0125], and Claims 1-20 of Applicant’s disclosure.
Accordingly, Kim 1 in view of Kim 2 discloses a light emitting device that necessarily possesses the properties of the light emitting device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 16, and thus renders obvious claim 16.
Regarding claim 20, Kim 1 in view of Kim 2 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]).
Regarding claim 21, Kim 1 in view of Kim 2 further discloses wherein the blue emission layer and, the first, second and third emission layers are commonly disposed over the red subpixel, the green subpixel, the blue subpixel and the white subpixel (FIGS. 1/3, depicting wherein the emission part 1180/light emitting device 200 including first EML 214 and first EML 223, second EML 224, and third EML 225 are commonly disposed over each pixel P).
Regarding claim 22, Kim 1 in view of Kim 2 further discloses a red color filter at the red subpixel, a green color filter at the green subpixel and a blue color filter at the blue subpixel (FIGS. 1/3, depicting color layers 1145 disposed on each pixel P; [0050]: “Although only one pixel P is illustrated in the drawing, the color layer 1145 may be formed in each of a red pixel, a blue pixel, and a green pixel. The color layer 1145 may include a red (R) color filter, a green (G) color filter, and a blue (B) color filter which are patterned and formed in respective pixels.”).
Regarding claim 23, Kim 1 in view of Kim 2 further discloses the red color filter, the green color filter and the blue color filter are disposed between a substrate and the anode electrode (FIGS. 1/3, depicting wherein the color layer 1145 is disposed between the substrate 101 and the first electrode 102).
Regarding claim 24, Kim 1 in view of Kim 2 further discloses the red color filter, the green color filter and the blue color filter are disposed above the second electrode (FIGS. 1/3, depicting wherein the color layer 1145 is disposed above the second electrode 104).
Regarding claim 25, Kim 1 in view of Kim 2 further discloses a thin-film transistor (FIGS. 1/3, depicting a TFT, [0043]) at each of the red subpixel, the green subpixel, the blue subpixel and the white subpixel (FIGS. 1/3, depicting wherein the TFT is disposed in each pixel P),
a first protective layer over the thin-film transistor (FIGS. 1/3, passivation layer 1140 over the TFT, [0049]), and
a second protective layer over the first protective layer (FIGS. 1/3, overcoating layer 1150 over the passivation layer 1140, [0051]),
wherein the second protective layer is under the anode electrode at the red subpixel, the green subpixel, the blue subpixel and the white subpixel (FIGS. 1/3, depicting wherein the overcoating layer 1150 is under the first electrode 102 in each pixel P),
wherein a thickness of the second protective layer at the white subpixel is greater than a thickness of the second protective layer at the red subpixel, and/or the green subpixel, and/or the blue subpixel (FIGS. 1/3, depicting wherein the white pixel P, which does not include a color layer 1145, would have an overcoating layer 1150 thickness that is greater than the thickness of, e.g., the red pixel P, which would include a color layer 1145 formed in the overcoating layer 1150, [0050]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 at (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
Prosecution Insights