DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
The reply filed 3 March 2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claim 15 has been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The amendment to claim 15 has overcome the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the last Office action. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 March 2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-6, 8, 12-14, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0235303 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) in view of Nakayama et al. (JP 2007-284411—machine translation relied upon) (hereinafter “Nakayama”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejections of claims 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0235303 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) in view of Nakayama et al. (JP 2007-284411—machine translation relied upon) (hereinafter “Nakayama”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of So et al. (US 2014/0077172 A1) (hereinafter “So”) and as evidenced by Xia et al. (US 2014/0131665 A1) (hereafter “Xia”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0235303 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) in view of Nakayama et al. (JP 2007-284411—machine translation relied upon) (hereinafter “Nakayama”) and So et al. (US 2014/0077172 A1) (hereinafter “So”), and further in view of Duan et al. (CN 113450371—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Duan”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0235303 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) in view of Nakayama et al. (JP 2007-284411—machine translation relied upon) (hereinafter “Nakayama”), and further in view of Himeshima et al. (JP 08-003547 A/JP 1996-003547—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Himeshima”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the specification (specifically the results summarized in Table 1 of the instant specification) describes evidence proving that the organic light-emitting device of the instant claims possesses unexpected results, showing nonobviousness over the cited prior art.
However, it is not clear that the current claims possess unexpected results or that the proffered results are commensurate in scope with the current claims.
As outlined below, Kim is the closest prior art. The device of Kim differs from the current claim 1 only in that the material of the layer being equated with the instant first hole transport layer is not a carbazole derivative. However, the devices of Examples 1 and 2 of the instant specification differ from Kim in many ways, making it impossible to determine that the difference between Kim and the current claim 1 would result in unexpected properties. The devices of Examples 1 and 2 of the instant specification have a different layer structure than that of Kim. The hole transport region of Kim comprises a layer being equated with a first hole transport layer (labeled the hole injection layer by Kim) and a second hole transport layer comprising a carbazole derivative. In contrast, the hole transport region of the instant Example 1 comprises a hole transport layer that is labeled as a hole injection layer consisting of HAT-CN, another hole transport layer comprising the instant Compound 1-2, and a further hole transport layer comprising the instant compound 1-11. The hole transport region of the instant Example 2 comprises a hole transport layer that is labeled as a hole injection layer consisting of HAT-CN, another hole transport layer comprising the instant Compound 1-2, a further hole transport layer comprising the instant compound 1-11, and yet a further hole transport layer comprising the instant compound 1-2. Because there are multiple differences between the device of Kim and the instant Example 1 and the instant Example 2, it cannot be determined that modifying the device of Kim to have each hole transport layer comprising a carbazole derivative would be unpredictable.
Furthermore, the hole transporting layers of the instant Example 1 and the instant Example 2 are composed of very specific carbazole derivatives, while the current claim 1 is not limited to any particular carbazole derivative or genus of carbazole derivatives. Therefore, it cannot be determined that any and all carbazole derivatives possible in the use of the hole transport layers as claimed would result in similar results to those observed by Applicant.
While claim 15 further limits the scope of the carbazole derivatives, it still remains unclear that compounds 1-2 and 1-11 would be representative of all of the compounds of the current claim 15.
Applicant's arguments filed 3 March 2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-6, 12-14, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0235303 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) in view of Thompson et al. (US 2003/0059647 A1) (hereafter “Thompson”) and Kim et al. (US 2017/0365796 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘796”) and as evidenced by Hatakeyama (US 2015/0236274 A1) (hereafter “Hatakeyama”) set forth in the last Office action as well as the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0235303 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) in view of Thompson et al. (US 2003/0059647 A1) (hereafter “Thompson”) and Kim et al. (US 2017/0365796 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘796”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakayama et al. (JP 2007-284411—machine translation relied upon) (hereinafter “Nakayama”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the specification (specifically the results summarized in Table 1 of the instant specification) describes evidence proving that the organic light-emitting device of the instant claims possesses unexpected results, showing nonobviousness over the cited prior art.
However, it is not clear that the current claims posses unexpected results or that the proffered results are commensurate in scope with the current claims.
As outlined below, Kim is the closest prior art. The device of Kim differs from the current claim 1 only in that the material of the layer being equated with the instant first hole transport layer is not a carbazole derivative. However, the devices of Examples 1 and 2 of the instant specification differ from Kim in many ways, making it impossible to determine that the difference between Kim and the current claim 1 would result in unexpected properties. The devices of Examples 1 and 2 of the instant specification have a different layer structure than that of Kim. The hole transport region of Kim comprises a layer being equated with a first hole transport layer (labeled the hole injection layer by Kim) and a second hole transport layer comprising a carbazole derivative. In contrast, the hole transport region of the instant Example 1 comprises a hole transport layer that is labeled as a hole injection layer consisting of HAT-CN, another hole transport layer comprising the instant Compound 1-2, and a further hole transport layer comprising the instant compound 1-11. The hole transport region of the instant Example 2 comprises a hole transport layer that is labeled as a hole injection layer consisting of HAT-CN, another hole transport layer comprising the instant Compound 1-2, a further hole transport layer comprising the instant compound 1-11, and yet a further hole transport layer comprising the instant compound 1-2. Because there are multiple differences between the device of Kim and the instant Example 1 and the instant Example 2, it cannot be determined that modifying the device of Kim to have each hole transport layer comprising a carbazole derivative would be unpredictable.
Furthermore, the hole transporting layers of the instant Example 1 and the instant Example 2 are composed of very specific carbazole derivatives, while the current claim 1 is not limited to any particular carbazole derivative or genus of carbazole derivatives. Therefore, it cannot be determined that any and all carbazole derivatives possible in the use of the hole transport layers as claimed would result in similar results to those observed by Applicant.
While claim 15 further limits the scope of the carbazole derivatives, it still remains unclear that compounds 1-2 and 1-11 would be representative of all of the compounds of the current claim 15.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 12-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0235303 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) in view of Nakayama et al. (JP 2007-284411—machine translation relied upon) (hereinafter “Nakayama”).
Regarding claims 1-6, 12-14, 16, and 18-19: Kim discloses a light-emitting device comprising a first electrode that is an anode, a second electrode that is a cathode facing the first electrode, and an interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode {paragraphs [0395]-[0397] and Table 1: Example 9}.
The interlayer comprises an emission layer, a hole transport region between the emission layer and the first electrode, and an electron transport region between the emission layer and the second electrode {paragraphs [0395]-[0397] and Table 1: Example 9}.
The electron transport region comprises an electron transport layer and an electron injection layer {paragraphs [0395]-[0397] and Table 1: Example 9}.
The hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer and a hole transport layer {paragraphs [0395]-[0397] and Table 1: Example 9}.
The hole transport layer comprises the carbazole based compound shown below {paragraphs [0268] and [0395]-[0397] and Table 1: Example 9}.
PNG
media_image1.png
706
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The emission layer comprises a first host, a second host, and a dopant {paragraphs [0395]-[0397] and Table 1: Example 9}. Where the first host and the second host are present at a ratio of 1:1 {paragraphs [0395]-[0397] and Table 1: Example 9}.
The emission layer emits blue light {paragraphs [0395]-[0397] and Table 1: Example 9}.
The dopant is a thermally activated delayed fluorescence dopant {paragraph [0204]} having the structure shown below {paragraphs [0201] and [0395]-[0397] and Table 1: Example 9}.
PNG
media_image2.png
452
524
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hatakeyama provides additional evidence that the dopant is a thermally activated delayed fluorescence dopant {paragraphs [0024]-[0025] and [0046]}.
The first host comprises a hole-transporting host having the structure shown below {paragraphs [0199] and [0395]-[0397] and Table 1: Example 9}.
PNG
media_image3.png
448
530
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The second host comprises an electron-transporting host having the structure shown below {paragraphs [0200] and [0395]-[0397] and Table 1: Example 9}.
PNG
media_image4.png
338
560
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Kim as modified by Thompson and Kim ‘796 does not exemplify a device in which the hole injection layer comprises a carbazole-based compound that is different from the carbazole-based compound of the hole transport layer as labeled by Kim.
Nakayama teaches carbazole derivatives for use in organic light-emitting devices {paragraphs [0010]-[0015]}.
The carbazole derivatives can be used as the material of the hole injection layer {paragraphs [0014]-[0015], [0030]-[0031], [0034], and [0050]}.
Nakayama exemplifies the compound shown below {paragraphs [0021]-[0022] and [0050]}.
PNG
media_image5.png
200
332
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Nakayama teaches that devices using the compounds of Nakayama are known to have low driving voltage, high brightness, and good durability {paragraph [0015]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device of Kim by using the compound of Nakayama shown above as the material of the hole injection layer. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum device materials in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices, which in this case means using a material known to provide devices having low driving voltage, high brightness, and good durability, as taught by Nakayama.
In the resultant device, the stack of the layer labeled by Kim as the hole injection layer and the layer labeled by Kim as the hole transport layer can be equated with the instant hole transport layer comprising a plurality of hole transport layers, because each layer must necessarily transport holes. The layer labeled by Kim as the hole injection layer can be equated with a first hole transport layer; the layer labeled by Kim as the hole transport layer can be equated with a second hole transport layer.
Because each layer comprises a different carbazole based compound the HOMO energy level of each carbazole based compound would be different.
Regarding claim 8: Kim as modified by Nakayama teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
As described above, the stack of the layer labeled by Kim as the hole injection layer and the layer labeled by Kim as the hole transport layer can be equated with the instant hole transport layer comprising a plurality of hole transport layers.
The total thickness of this layer stack is 1300 Å {paragraphs [0395]-[0397] and Table 1: Example 9}.
Regarding claim 16: Kim as modified by Nakayama teaches all of the features with respect to claim 2, as outlined above. The device taught by Kim as modified by Nakayama meets the limitations of the current claim 16 where a phosphorescent dopant is not used.
Regarding claim 17: Kim as modified by Nakayama teaches all of the features with respect to claim 2, as outlined above.
Kim as modified by Nakayama do not teach a specific device in which thermally activated delayed fluorescence dopant is one of the Compounds 4-1 to 4-16 of the current claim 17.
However, Kim teaches that the thermally activated delayed fluorescence dopant can alternately comprise the compound shown below {paragraph [0201]}.
PNG
media_image6.png
284
626
media_image6.png
Greyscale
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device of Kim such that the compound shown above was used at the thermally activated delayed fluorescence dopant, based on the teaching of Kim. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Regarding claim 18: Kim as modified by Nakayama teaches all of the features with respect to claim 2, as outlined above. The device taught by Kim as modified by Nakayama meets the limitations of the current claim 18 where a fluorescent dopant is not used.
Regarding claim 19: Kim as modified by Nakayama teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. A light emitting device is an electronic apparatus.
Regarding claims 19-20: Kim as modified by Nakayama teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Kim does not teach a specific electronic apparatus comprising a thin-film transistor, wherein the thin-film transistor comprises a source electrode and a drain electrode, and the first electrode of the light-emitting device is electrically connected to the source electrode or the drain electrode.
However, Kim does teach a display apparatus including: a thin-film transistor including a source electrode, a drain electrode, and an active layer; and the organic light-emitting device of the disclosure of Kim, wherein the first electrode of the organic light-emitting device is electrically coupled to one selected from the source electrode and the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor {paragraphs [0053] and [0361]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included the organic light emitting device of Kim in the display apparatus of Kim described above, based on the teaching of Kim. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum device structures in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices, which in this case would be to provide a display apparatus comprising the organic light emitting device of Kim.
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0235303 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) in view of Nakayama et al. (JP 2007-284411—machine translation relied upon) (hereinafter “Nakayama”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of So et al. (US 2014/0077172 A1) (hereinafter “So”) and as evidenced by Xia et al. (US 2014/0131665 A1) (hereafter “Xia”).
Regarding claims 9-10: Kim as modified by Nakayama teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Kim as modified by Nakayama does not teach that the emission layer comprises a second dopant in which the second dopant is a phosphorescent dopant where intersystem crossing occurs more actively than emission of light.
However, So teaches organic light emitting devices in which the emissive layer comprises a thermally activated delayed fluorescence material and a sensitizer that is a phosphorescent material {abstract; Fig. 4 as described in paragraph [0039]; paragraph [0016]; paragraph [0045]}.
So teaches that such an arrangement leads to reduced degradation and provide sensitization of up to 100% exciton utilization {paragraphs [0035] and [0038]-[0039]}.
The arrangement leads to a high level of sensitization that reduces or eliminates emission from the phosphorescent emitter, and thus, intersystem crossing occurs more actively than emission of light {paragraph [0038]}.
The emissive material is a fluorescent material that can be an E-type delayed fluorescence material {paragraph [0046]}. Xia evidences that E-type delayed fluorescence materials are thermally activated delayed fluorescence materials {paragraph [0048]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device taught by Kim such that the emissive layer comprised a thermally activated delayed fluorescence material and a phosphorescent sensitizer for the thermally activated delayed fluorescence material, based on the teaching of So. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with reduced degradation and sensitization of up to 100% exciton utilization, as taught by So.
Claim(s) 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0235303 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) in view of Nakayama et al. (JP 2007-284411—machine translation relied upon) (hereinafter “Nakayama”) and So et al. (US 2014/0077172 A1) (hereinafter “So”) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Duan et al. (CN 113450371—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Duan”).
Regarding claim 11: Kim as modified by Nakayama and So teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Kim as modified by Nakayama and So does not specify the relative concentrations of the emissive dopant and the sensitizing dopant.
Duan teaches a similar system for the emissive layer where the ratio of the emissive dopant to the phosphorescent sensitizing dopant is 1:10 {p. 138, Example 1}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device taught by Kim such that the ratio of the emissive dopant to the phosphorescent sensitizing dopant is 1:10, based on the teaching of Duan. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0235303 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) in view of Nakayama et al. (JP 2007-284411—machine translation relied upon) (hereinafter “Nakayama”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Himeshima et al. (JP 08-003547 A/JP 1996-003547—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Himeshima”).
Regarding claim 15: Kim as modified by Nakayama teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Kim does not teach that the carbazole-based compound of a hole transport layer of the plurality of hole transport layer is a compound of one of the instant Compounds 1-1 to 1-22.
Himeshima teaches biscarbazole compounds having the structure of Himeshima’s formula shown below {(pp. 3-4, paragraphs [0009]-[0011]), (p. 4, Chemical Formula 4)}. Compounds having the structure of Himeshima’s formula are exemplified by Himeshima's compound (7), also shown below {(pp. 7-8, paragraphs [0026]-[0027] & Chemical Formula 7; Compounds of the invention are exemplified by Compounds (1) through (40).), (p. 8, Compound (7))}. Himeshima’s compounds are useful as hole transporting materials {pp. 3-4, paragraphs [0009]-[0011]}.
[AltContent: textbox (Himeshima’s Compound (7))][AltContent: textbox (Himeshima’s Chemical Formula 4)]
PNG
media_image7.png
200
400
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
200
400
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Himeshima sought to provide compounds with superior ionization potential, carrier mobility, film forming ability, and heat resistance {pp. 3-4, paragraphs [0009]-[0011]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device of Kim by using the compound of Himeshima shown above as the material of the hole transport layer. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum device materials in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices, which in this case means using a material known to have superior ionization potential, carrier mobility, film forming ability, and heat resistance, as taught by Himeshima.
Claim(s) 1-6, 12-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0235303 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) in view of Thompson et al. (US 2003/0059647 A1) (hereafter “Thompson”) and Kim et al. (US 2017/0365796 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘796”) and as evidenced by Hatakeyama (US 2015/0236274 A1) (hereafter “Hatakeyama”).
Regarding claims 1-6, 12-14, 16, and 18-19: Kim discloses a light-emitting device comprising a first electrode that is an anode, a second electrode that is a cathode facing the first electrode, and an interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode {paragraphs [0395]-[0397] and Table 1: Example 9}.
The interlayer comprises an emission layer, a hole transport layer between the emission layer and the first electrode, and an electron transport region between the emission layer and the second electrode {paragraphs [0395]-[0397] and Table 1: Example 9}.
The electron transport region comprises an electron transport layer and an electron injection layer {paragraphs [0395]-[0397] and Table 1: Example 9}.
The interlayer further comprises hole transport region comprising a hole injection layer {paragraphs [0395]-[0397] and Table 1: Example 9}.
The hole transport layer comprises the carbazole based compound shown below {paragraphs [0268] and [0395]-[0397] and Table 1: Example 9}.
PNG
media_image1.png
706
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The emission layer comprises a first host, a second host, and a dopant {paragraphs [0395]-[0397] and Table 1: Example 9}. Where the first host and the second host are present at a ratio of 1:1 {paragraphs [0395]-[0397] and Table 1: Example 9}.
The emission layer emits blue light {paragraphs [0395]-[0397] and Table 1: Example 9}.
The dopant is a thermally activated delayed fluorescence dopant {paragraph [0204]} having the structure shown below {paragraphs [0201] and [0395]-[0397] and Table 1: Example 9}.
PNG
media_image2.png
452
524
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hatakeyama provides additional evidence that the dopant is a thermally activated delayed fluorescence dopant {paragraphs [0024]-[0025] and [0046]}.
The first host comprises a hole-transporting host having the structure shown below {paragraphs [0199] and [0395]-[0397] and Table 1: Example 9}.
PNG
media_image3.png
448
530
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The second host comprises an electron-transporting host having the structure shown below {paragraphs [0200] and [0395]-[0397] and Table 1: Example 9}.
PNG
media_image4.png
338
560
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Kim does not teach a similar device to the device described above except for having an additional hole transport layer comprising a carbazole based compound differing from the carbazole based compound of the hole transport layer of Kim described above.
However, Kim teaches that the device of Kim can comprise an electron blocking layer between the emission layer and the hole transport layer {paragraph [0219] and [0229]-[0230]}.
Thompson teaches that including an electron blocking layer can increase the efficiency of an organic light emitting device {abstract and paragraphs [0008] and [0101]}.
Kim ‘796 teaches carbazole derivatives for use in organic light-emitting devices {paragraphs [0006]-[0008], [0043]-[0048], [0058], [0155]-[0161]}.
The carbazole derivatives can be used as the material of an electron blocking layer {paragraphs [0154], [0167], [0169], [0217]-[0218], [0255]}.
Kim ‘796 exemplifies the compound shown below {p. 23}.
PNG
media_image9.png
370
630
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Kim ‘796 teaches that devices using the compounds of Kim ‘796 are known to have high efficiency, high brightness, and long lifespans {paragraphs [0147] and [0161]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Kim by including an electron blocking layer between the emissive layer and the hole transport layer comprising the compound of Kim ‘796 shown above, based on the teaching of Kim, Thompson, and Kim ‘796. The motivation for doing so would have been to include an electron blocking layer to improve the efficiency of the device by using a material known to produce devices having high efficiency, high brightness, and long lifespans. Additionally, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum device structures and materials in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
In the resultant device, the stack of the layer labeled by Kim as the hole transport layer and the layer labeled by Kim as the electron blocking layer can be equated with the instant hole transport layer comprising a plurality of hole transport layers, because each layer must necessarily transport holes. The layer labeled by Kim as the hole transport layer can be equated with a first hole transport layer and the layer labeled by Kim as the electron blocking layer can be equated with a second hole transport layer.
Because each layer comprises a different carbazole based compound the HOMO energy level of each carbazole based compound would be different.
Regarding claim 16: Kim as modified by Thompson and Kim ‘796 teaches all of the features with respect to claim 2, as outlined above. The device taught by Kim as modified by Thompson and Kim ‘796 meets the limitations of the current claim 16 where a phosphorescent dopant is not used.
Regarding claim 17: Kim as modified by Thompson and Kim ‘796 teaches all of the features with respect to claim 2, as outlined above.
Kim as modified by Thompson and Kim ‘796 do not teach a specific device in which thermally activated delayed fluorescence dopant is one of the Compounds 4-1 to 4-16 of the current claim 17.
However, Kim teaches that the thermally activated delayed fluorescence dopant can alternately comprise the compound shown below {paragraph [0201]}.
PNG
media_image6.png
284
626
media_image6.png
Greyscale
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device of Kim such that the compound shown above was used at the thermally activated delayed fluorescence dopant, based on the teaching of Kim. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Regarding claim 18: Kim as modified by Thompson and Kim ‘796 teaches all of the features with respect to claim 2, as outlined above. The device taught by Kim as modified by Thompson and Kim ‘796 meets the limitations of the current claim 18 where a fluorescent dopant is not used.
Regarding claim 19: Kim as modified by Thompson and Kim ‘796 teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. A light emitting device is an electronic apparatus.
Regarding claims 19-20: Kim as modified by Thompson and Kim ‘796 teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Kim does not teach a specific electronic apparatus comprising a thin-film transistor, wherein the thin-film transistor comprises a source electrode and a drain electrode, and the first electrode of the light-emitting device is electrically connected to the source electrode or the drain electrode.
However, Kim does teach a display apparatus including: a thin-film transistor including a source electrode, a drain electrode, and an active layer; and the organic light-emitting device of the disclosure of Kim, wherein the first electrode of the organic light-emitting device is electrically coupled to one selected from the source electrode and the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor {paragraphs [0053] and [0361]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included the organic light emitting device of Kim in the display apparatus of Kim described above, based on the teaching of Kim. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum device structures in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices, which in this case would be to provide a display apparatus comprising the organic light emitting device of Kim.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0235303 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) in view of Thompson et al. (US 2003/0059647 A1) (hereafter “Thompson”) and Kim et al. (US 2017/0365796 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘796”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakayama et al. (JP 2007-284411—machine translation relied upon) (hereinafter “Nakayama”).
Regarding claim 7: Kim as modified by Thompson and Kim ‘796 teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Kim as modified by Thompson and Kim ‘796 does not exemplify a device in which the hole injection layer comprises a carbazole-based compound that is different from the carbazole-based compound of the hole transport layer as labeled by Kim.
Nakayama teaches carbazole derivatives for use in organic light-emitting devices {paragraphs [0010]-[0015]}.
The carbazole derivatives can be used as the material of the hole injection layer {paragraphs [0014]-[0015], [0030]-[0031], [0034], and [0050]}.
Nakayama exemplifies the compound shown below {paragraphs [0021]-[0022] and [0050]}.
PNG
media_image5.png
200
332
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Nakayama teaches that devices using the compounds of Nakayama are known to have low driving voltage, high brightness, and good durability {paragraph [0015]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device of Kim by using the compound of Nakayama shown above as the material of the hole injection layer. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum device structures and materials in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices, which in this case means using a material known to provide devices having low driving voltage, high brightness, and good durability, as taught by Nakayama.
In the resultant device, the stack of the layers labeled by Kim as the hole injection layer, the hole transport layer, and the layer labeled by Kim as the electron blocking layer can be equated with the instant hole transport layer comprising a plurality of hole transport layers, because each layer must necessarily transport holes. The layer labeled by Kim as the hole injection layer can be equated with a first hole transport layer; the layer labeled by Kim as the hole transport layer can be equated with a second hole transport layer; and the layer labeled by Kim as the electron blocking layer can be equated with a third hole transport layer.
Because each layer comprises a different carbazole based compound the HOMO energy level of each carbazole based compound would be different.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DYLAN C KERSHNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights