DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/6/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the phrase “selected from”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “selected from the group consisting of”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 10-12, 14-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2010/0052523, hereafter Kim ‘523) in view of Parham et al (US 2009/0295275).
Regarding claim 1, Kim ‘523 discloses an organic light emitting device (Abstract) comprising a first electrode (Abstract), a second electrode (Abstract) facing the first electrode (Figure 1), and an intermediate layer, i.e. an interlayer (Abstract), found between the first electrode and second electrode (Abstract). The intermediate layer comprises an organic emission layer (Abstract), as well as hole transport and hole injection layers ([0050]), i.e. a hole transport region, where the hole transport and hole injection layers are between the light emitting layer and the first electrode ([0050]). The first electrode is a transparent electrode comprising MoOx or WOx ([0010]). Accordingly, the first electrode comprises an inorganic material comprising a metal oxide, where the metal is W or Mo as recited in the present claims.
While the reference discloses that the light emitting device comprises a hole transport layer, the reference does not disclose that the hole transport layer comprises the cyclic compound represented by Formula 1 as recited in the present claims.
Parham et al discloses an organic light emitting device (Abstract), where the hole transport layer of the device comprises the following compound (Abstract, [0015]-[0016], and Page 9 – Structure 27):
PNG
media_image1.png
444
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by recited Formula (1):
PNG
media_image2.png
288
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where:
CY1, CY2, and CY3 are each C6 carbocyclic groups;
Y1 is N;
a1, a2, and a3 are each one (1);
Ar1, Ar2, and Ar3 are C6 carbocyclic groups;
b1, b2, and b3 are each one (1);
n1, n2, and n3 are one (1);
n1 + n2 + n3 = 3; and
R1, R3, and R3 are hydrogen.
In the compound disclosed by the reference, X1 and X2 are N, and L1, L2, and L3 are single bonds, and therefore, and X1 and X2 are not O or S, and at least one of L1 to L3 is not phenylene as required by the present claims. However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to the following formula ([0016] – Formula 1):
PNG
media_image3.png
328
330
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where R is disclosed as an aromatic ring system having 5 to 40 aromatic ring atoms ([0020] and [0019]). Such ring systems include biphenyl, i.e.
PNG
media_image4.png
112
290
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Thus, the disclosure of reference encompasses an embodiments where at least one of L1 to L3 in Formula 1 of the claims is a phenylene group. Furthermore, in the above formula Y can be O or S ([0018]), i.e. in Formula 1 of the claims X1 and X2 can be O or S.
The reference discloses that the compound has excellent hole conducting properties in organic light emitting device ([0011]), high temperature stability ([0014]), and a positive effect on the operating lifetime of the device ([0014])
Given that both Kim ‘523 and Parham et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices comprising hole transport regions, and given that Kim ‘523 does not explicitly prohibit other compounds in the hole transport region, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the compound as taught by Parham et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such compounds in the hole transport region of the device disclosed by Kim ‘523 with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Parham et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kim ‘523 discloses that the light emitting device comprises a first electrode, a second electrode, and an intermediate layer comprising an organic emission layer and hole transport and hole injection layers ([0050]). The device further comprises electron transport and electron injection layer between the emission layer and the second electrode ([0050]). Accordingly, the reference discloses a device with the layers:
first electrode / [hole transport and hole injection layers ] / emission layer /
[electron injection and electron transport layers ] / second electrode.
Accordingly, it is clear that the first electrode is an anode and the second electrode is a cathode. Furthermore, the device comprises an electron transport region, i.e. electron transport and electron injection layers, between the emission layer and the second electrode as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 4, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Parham et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Given that Kim ‘523 does not require the presence of p-dopants in the hole transport layer, it is clear that the hole transport layer does not comprise a p-dopant as required by the present claims.
Regarding claim 6, the combined disclosures of Kim et al and Parham et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the compound disclosed by Parham et al, Ar1, Ar2, and Ar3 are benzene groups.
Regarding claim 7, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Parham et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the compound disclosed by Parham et al, Ar1, Ar2, and Ar3 are benzene groups, corresponding to Formula (2-1) of the claims:
PNG
media_image5.png
74
100
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where Z1 is hydrogen.
Regarding claim 8, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Parham et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, Parham et al discloses a compound encompassed by Formula (1-1) of the claims:
PNG
media_image6.png
298
390
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
where R11, R13, R21, R23, R24, R31, R33, and R34 are hydrogen.
Regarding claim 10, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Parham et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Kim ‘523 discloses that the first electrode comprises a first layer, a second layer, and a third layer ([0018]), where the third layer is between the second layer and the emission layer ([0018]), i.e. the reference discloses in order of stacking:
first layer / second layer / third layer / interlayer,
as recited in the present claims. The first layer comprises MoOx, WOx, YbOx, ReOx, GeOx ([0116]), i.e. the first layer comprises a first material. The second layer is a reflective layer and comprises Li and Ca ([0116] and [0081]), i.e. the second layer comprises a second material. The third layer comprises a material such as MoOx or WOx, i.e. the recited inorganic material ([0116]). Accordingly, the first material, i.e. MoOx, WOx, YbOx, ReOx, GeOx is different from the second material, i.e. Li or Ca; and the second material, i.e. Li or Ca is different from the inorganic material, i.e. MoOx or WOx as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 11, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523l and Parham et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kim ‘523 discloses in order of stacking:
first layer / second layer / third layer / interlayer,
and therefore, the first layer is in direct contact with the second layer as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 12, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Parham et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kim et al discloses in order of stacking:
first layer / second layer / third layer / interlayer,
and therefore, the second layer is in direct contact with the third layer as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 14, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Parham et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kim ‘523 discloses that the first material is MoOx, WOx, YbOx, ReOx, or GeOx, i e. a conductive oxide.
Regarding claim 15, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Parham et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kim ‘523 discloses that the second material is Li or Ca, i.e. the second material comprises a metal material.
Regarding claim 16, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Parham et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kim ‘523 discloses that the first material is MoOx, WOx, YbOx, ReOx, or GeOx, and the second material is MoOx or WOx. Accordingly, the first and second material can be different.
Regarding claim 17, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Parham et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kim ‘523 discloses that the third layer is MoOx or WOx. Accordingly, the third layer consists of the inorganic material as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 18, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Parham et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Kim ‘523 discloses a display apparatus comprising the organic light emitting device ([0003]).
Regarding claim 19, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Parham et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Kim ‘523 discloses that the display apparatus comprises a thin film transistor ([0011]), where the thin film transistor comprises an active layer ([0091]), i.e. an activation layer, a source region ([0091]), i.e. a source electrode, and a drain region ([0091]), i.e. a drain electrode. The first electrode of the organic light emitting device is electrically connected to the drain electrode ([0096]).
Regarding claim 21, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Parham et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, Parham et al does not disclose Compound 1 of the present claims:
PNG
media_image7.png
196
228
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to the following formula ([0016] – Formula 1):
PNG
media_image3.png
328
330
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where one (1) R-group can correspond to the biphenyl group discussed above, and the remaining R-groups can be hydrogen. Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses Compound 1 of the claims.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2010/0052523, hereafter Kim ‘523 and Parham et al (US 2009/0295275) as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6-12, 14-19, and 21 above, and in view of Yasumoto et al (US 2016/0028034).
The discussion with respect to Kim ‘523 and Parham et al as set forth in Paragraph 7 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 3, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Parham et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kim ‘523 discloses WOx. However, the reference does not disclose that x is 2.5 ≤ x ≤ 3.0 as recited in the present claims.
Yasumoto et al discloses that tungsten oxide is generally represented by WOx (2 ≤ x < 3) and can exist as a non-stoichiometric compound which can have a variety of compositions, typically WO3, W2O5, W4O11, and WO2 ([0104]).
In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any of the typical compositions of tungsten oxide, including WO3 in the electrode disclosed by Kim ‘523, as doing so would amount to nothing more than use of known tungsten oxide for its intended use, in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected results.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2010/0052523, hereafter Kim ‘523) and Parham et al (US 2009/0295275) as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6-12, 14-19, and 21 above, and in view of Kim et al (US 2014/0054555, hereafter Kim ‘555).
The discussion with respect to Kim ‘523 and Parham et al as set forth in Paragraph 7 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 20, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Parham et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kim ‘523 discloses an organic light emitting display device. However, the reference does not disclose a color filter as recited in the present claims
Kim ‘555 discloses that a conventional organic light emitting display device includes a substrate, a thin film transistor (TFT) formed on the substrate, and a color filter ([0010]). In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a color filter in the organic light emitting display device disclosed by Kim ‘523, as doing so would amount to nothing more than use of an element for its intended use, in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected results.
Claims 1, 5, 10, 13, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parham et al (US 2009/0295275) in view of Kim et al (US 2010/0052523, hereafter Kim ‘523).
Regarding claim 1, Parham et al discloses an organic light emitting device (Abstract), comprising an anode, i.e. a first electrode, a cathode, i.e. a second electrode, and a layer, i.e. interlayer, disposed between the anode and cathode ([0052]). The layer comprises a light emitting layer ([0052]) and a hole transport layer, i.e. a hole transport region, between the anode, and light emitting layer ([0052] and [0084]). The hole transport layer of the device comprises the following compound (Abstract, [0015]-[0016], and Page 9 – Structure 27):
PNG
media_image1.png
444
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by recited Formula (1):
PNG
media_image2.png
288
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where:
CY1, CY2, and CY3 are each C6 carbocyclic groups;
Y1 is N;
a1, a2, and a3 are each one (1);
Ar1, Ar2, and Ar3 are C6 carbocyclic groups;
b1, b2, and b3 are each one (1);
n1, n2, and n3 are one (1);
n1 + n2 + n3 = 3; and
R1, R3, and R3 and H.
In the compound disclosed by the reference, X1 and X2 are N, and L1, L2, and L3 are single bonds, and therefore, and X1 and X2 are not O or S, and at least one of L1 to L3 is not phenylene as required by the present claims. However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to the following formula ([0016] – Formula 1):
PNG
media_image3.png
328
330
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where R is disclosed as an aromatic ring system having 5 to 40 aromatic ring atoms ([0020] and [0019]). Such ring systems include biphenyl, i.e.
PNG
media_image4.png
112
290
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Thus, the disclosure of reference encompasses an embodiments where at least one of L1 to L3 in Formula 1 of the claims is a phenylene group. Furthermore, in the above formula Y can be O or S ([0018]), i.e. in Formula 1 of the claims X1 and X2 can be O or S.
The reference teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above; however, the reference does not disclose that the first electrode comprises an inorganic material comprises a metal oxide as recited in the present claims.
Kim ‘523 discloses an organic light emitting device (Abstract) comprising a first electrode (Abstract), a second electrode (Abstract), an intermediate layer, i.e. interlayer, (Abstract) formed been the first electrode and second electrode formed on the intermediate layer (Abstract). The first electrode is a transparent electrode comprising MoOx or WOx ([0010]). Accordingly, the first electrode comprises an inorganic material, where the inorganic material comprises a metal oxide, where the metal is W or Mo as recited in the present claims. The transparent electrode comprising MoOx or WOx has improved performance, as well as a switching effect and driving voltage superior to a conventional organic light emitting device (Abstract and [0055]).
Given that both Parham et al and Kim ‘523 drawn to organic light emitting devices comprising electrode and given that Kim ‘523 does not explicitly prohibit other compounds for the first electrode, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of MoOx or WOx as taught by Kim ‘523, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize such compounds in the first electrode disclosed by Parham et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, the combined disclosures of Parham et al and Kim ‘523 teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, it is noted that Parham et al discloses an organic light emitting device where a hole injection layer is not required ([0084] and Table 2). Accordingly, the first electrode is necessarily in direct contact with the hole transport layer as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 10, the combined disclosures of Parham et al and Kim ‘523 teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Kim ‘523 discloses that the first electrode comprises a first layer, a second layer, and a third layer ([0018]), where the third layer is between the second layer and the emission layer ([0018]), i.e. the reference discloses in order of stacking:
first layer / second layer / third layer,
as recited in the present claims. The first layer comprises MoOx, WOx, YbOx, ReOx, GeOx ([0116]), i.e. the first layer comprises a first material. The second layer is a reflective layer and comprises Li and Ca ([0116] and [0081]), i.e. the second layer comprises a second material. The third layer comprises a material such as MoOx or WOx, i.e. the recited inorganic material ([0116]). Accordingly, the first material, i.e. MoOx, WOx, YbOx, ReOx, GeOx is different from the second material, i.e. Li or Ca; and the second material, i.e. Li or Ca is different from the inorganic material, i.e. MoOx or WOx as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 13, the combined disclosures of Parham et al and Kim ‘523 teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, it is noted that Parham et al discloses an organic light emitting device where a hole injection layer is not required ([0084] and Table 2). Accordingly, combined disclosures of Parham et al and Kim ‘523 disclose an organic light emitting device where the third layer is necessarily in direct contact with the hole transport layer as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 21, the combined disclosures of Parham et al and Kim ‘523 teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, Parham et al does not disclose Compound 1 of the present claims:
PNG
media_image7.png
196
228
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to the following formula ([0016] – Formula 1):
PNG
media_image3.png
328
330
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where one (1) R-group can correspond to the biphenyl group discussed above, and the remaining R-groups can be hydrogen. Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses Compound 1 of the claims.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 10-12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2010/0052523, hereafter Kim ‘523) in view of Itoi et al (US 2016/0099416).
Regarding claim 1, Kim ‘523 discloses an organic light emitting device (Abstract) comprising a first electrode (Abstract), a second electrode (Abstract) facing the first electrode (Figure 1), and an intermediate layer, i.e. an interlayer (Abstract), found between the first electrode and second electrode (Abstract). The intermediate layer comprises an organic emission layer (Abstract), as well as hole transport and hole injection layers ([0050]), i.e. a hole transport region, where the hole transport and hole injection layers are between the light emitting layer and the first electrode ([0050]). The first electrode is a transparent electrode comprising MoOx or WOx ([0010]). Accordingly, the first electrode comprises an inorganic material comprising a metal oxide, where the metal is W or Mo as recited in the present claims.
While the reference discloses that the light emitting device comprises a hole transport layer, the reference does not disclose that the hole transport layer comprises the cyclic compound represented by Formula 1 as recited in the present claims.
Itoi et al discloses an organic light emitting device (Abstract), where the hole transport layer of the device comprises the following compound (Abstract, [0073] – Compound 10 and [0075] – Table 1):
PNG
media_image8.png
368
603
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by recited Formula (1):
PNG
media_image2.png
288
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where:
CY1, CY2, and CY3 are each C6 carbocyclic groups;
Y1 is N;
n1 is one (1);
a1 is one (1);
L1 is a phenylene group;
Ar1 is phenyl groups, i.e. a C6 carbocyclic group substituted by one (1) R10a;
R10a is N(Q11)(Q12), where Q11 and Q12 are biphenyl groups, i.e. C12 carbocyclic groups;
n1 and n2 are zero (0);
n1 + n2 + n3 = 1; and
R1, R3, and R3 are hydrogen.
The reference discloses that the compound results om decreased driving voltage, increased emission efficiency ([0078]-[0079]).
Given that both Kim ‘523 and Itoi et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices comprising hole transport regions, and given that Kim ‘523 does not explicitly prohibit other compounds in the hole transport region, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the compound as taught by Itoi et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such compounds in the hole transport region of the device disclosed by Kim ‘523 with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Itoi et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kim ‘523 discloses that the light emitting device comprises a first electrode, a second electrode, and an intermediate layer comprising an organic emission layer and hole transport and hole injection layers ([0050]). The device further comprises electron transport and electron injection layer between the emission layer and the second electrode ([0050]). Accordingly, the reference discloses a device with the layers:
first electrode / [hole transport and hole injection layers ] / emission layer /
[electron injection and electron transport layers ] / second electrode.
Accordingly, it is clear that the first electrode is an anode, the second electrode is a cathode. Furthermore, the device comprises an electron transport region, i.e. electron transport and electron injection layers, between the emission layer and the second electrode as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 4, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Itoi et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Given that Kim ‘523 does not require the presence of p-dopants in the hole transport layer, it is clear that the hole transport layer does not comprise a p-dopant as required by the present claims.
Regarding claim 6, the combined disclosures of Kim et al and Itoi et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the compound disclosed by Itoi et al, Ar1 is a benzene group.
Regarding claim 7, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Itoi et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the compound disclosed by Itoi et al, Ar1 is a benzene group, corresponding to Formula (2-1) of the claims:
PNG
media_image5.png
74
100
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where Z1 is -N(Q31)(Q32), where Q31 andQ32 are biphenyl groups.
Regarding claim 8, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Itoi et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, Itoi et al discloses a compound encompassed by Formula (1-1) of the claims:
PNG
media_image6.png
298
390
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
where R11, R13, R21, R23, R24, R31, R33, and R34 are hydrogen.
Regarding claim 10, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Itoi et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Kim ‘523 discloses that the first electrode comprises a first layer, a second layer, and a third layer ([0018]), where the third layer is between the second layer and the emission layer ([0018]), i.e. the reference discloses in order of stacking:
first layer / second layer / third layer / interlayer,
as recited in the present claims. The first layer comprises MoOx, WOx, YbOx, ReOx, GeOx ([0116]), i.e. the first layer comprises a first material. The second layer is a reflective layer and comprises Li and Ca ([0116] and [0081]), i.e. the second layer comprises a second material. The third layer comprises a material such as MoOx or WOx, i.e. the recited inorganic material ([0116]). Accordingly, the first material, i.e. MoOx, WOx, YbOx, ReOx, GeOx is different from the second material, i.e. Li or Ca; and the second material, i.e. Li or Ca is different from the inorganic material, i.e. MoOx or WOx as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 11, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523l and Itoi et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kim ‘523 discloses in order of stacking:
first layer / second layer / third layer / interlayer,
and therefore, the first layer is in direct contact with the second layer as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 12, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Itoi et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kim et al discloses in order of stacking:
first layer / second layer / third layer / interlayer,
and therefore, the second layer is in direct contact with the third layer as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 14, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Itoi et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kim ‘523 discloses that the first material is MoOx, WOx, YbOx, ReOx, or GeOx, i e. a conductive oxide.
Regarding claim 15, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Itoi et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kim ‘523 discloses that the second material is Li or Ca, i.e. the second material comprises a metal material.
Regarding claim 16, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Itoi et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kim ‘523 discloses that the first material is MoOx, WOx, YbOx, ReOx, or GeOx, and the second material is MoOx or WOx. Accordingly, the first and second material can be different.
Regarding claim 17, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Itoi et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kim ‘523 discloses that the third layer is MoOx or WOx. Accordingly, the third layer consists of the inorganic material as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 18, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Itoi et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Kim ‘523 discloses a display apparatus comprising the organic light emitting device ([0003]).
Regarding claim 19, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Itoi et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Kim ‘523 discloses that the display apparatus comprises a thin film transistor ([0011]), where the thin film transistor comprises an active layer ([0091]), i.e. an activation layer, a source region ([0091]), i.e. a source electrode, and a drain region ([0091]), i.e. a drain electrode. The first electrode of the organic light emitting device is electrically connected to the drain electrode ([0096]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2010/0052523, hereafter Kim ‘523 and Itoi et al (US 2016/0099416) as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 10-12, and 14-19 above, and in view of Yasumoto et al (US 2016/0028034).
The discussion with respect to Kim ‘523 and Itoi et al as set forth in Paragraph 11 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 3, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Itoi et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kim ‘523 discloses WOx. However, the reference does not disclose that x is 2.5 ≤ x ≤ 3.0 as recited in the present claims.
Yasumoto et al discloses that tungsten oxide is generally represented by WOx (2 ≤ x < 3) and can exist as a non-stoichiometric compound which can have a variety of compositions, typically WO3, W2O5, W4O11, and WO2 ([0104]).
In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any of the typical compositions of tungsten oxide, including WO3 in the electrode disclosed by Kim ‘523, as doing so would amount to nothing more than use of known tungsten oxide for its intended use, in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected results.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2010/0052523, hereafter Kim ‘523) and Itoi et al (US 2016/0099416) as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 10-12, and 14-19 above, and in view of Kim et al (US 2014/0054555, hereafter Kim ‘555).
The discussion with respect to Kim ‘523 and Itoi et al as set forth in Paragraph 11 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 20, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Itoi et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kim ‘523 discloses an organic light emitting display device. However, the reference does not disclose a color filter as recited in the present claims
Kim ‘555 discloses that a conventional organic light emitting display device includes a substrate, a thin film transistor (TFT) formed on the substrate, and a color filter ([0010]). In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a color filter in the organic light emitting display device disclosed by Kim ‘523, as doing so would amount to nothing more than use of an element for its intended use, in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejection set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn.
As evidence of unexpected results, Applicants compare Inventive Examples 1 to 6 (Table 3 of the as-filed Specification) where the first electrode comprises a metal oxide, and the hole transport layer comprises a compound encompassed by Formula 1 to Comparative Examples 5 to 7 which only comprise a metal oxide for the first electrode and to Comparative Examples 1 to 3 which only comprise a compound encompassed by Formula 1 in the hole transport layer. However, the data presented in the Specification are not found to be persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
The comparison of Inventive Examples 1 to 6 to Comparative Examples 1-4 is proper side-by-side comparison given that the only difference in the organic light emitting devices is composition of the first electrode, i.e. the inventive examples utilize IT/Ag/[WOx or MoOx] for the first electrode, while the comparative examples utilize ITO for the first electrode. However, it is significant to note that the inventive examples are not commensurate in scope with the scope of the claims for the following reasons.
Claim 1 requires that the first electrode comprises an inorganic material comprising a metal oxide that includes at least one metal oxide selected from W, Mo, Ga, Ni, Cu, Zn or Ti. Thus, the claim encompasses all possible oxides of W, Mo, Ga, Ni, Cu, Zn and Ti, while the inventive examples merely exemplify the specific oxides WOx and MoOx.
Secondly, claim 1 merely requires that the first electrode is present, while the inventive examples utilize a tri-layer electrode, i.e. one comprising a layer of ITO, followed by a layer of Ag, and finally a layer of WOx or MoOx, see Pages 96-97 – Example 1 of the instant Specification. Thus, the electrode exemplified in the inventive example is but one of a myriad of possible electrodes encompassed by the first electrode as recited in the present claims.
Accordingly, it is unclear if the obtained results are indicative of all metal oxide and first electrodes encompassed by the present claims, or only for the particular metal oxides and first electrodes exemplified in the inventive examples.
Regarding the comparison of Inventive Examples 1 to 6 to Comparative Examples 5-7, while the comparison appears to be a proper side-by-side comparison given that the only difference is in the hole transporting compound, the comparison is proper for the following reasons.
Inventive Examples 1 to 6 utilize Compounds 1, 5, 30, 62, and 90, i.e.
PNG
media_image9.png
130
178
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
124
190
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
116
234
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
166
138
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
214
212
media_image13.png
Greyscale
,
while Comparative Examples 5-7 utilize Compounds HT1, HT2, and HT3:
PNG
media_image14.png
210
660
media_image14.png
Greyscale
.
The comparative hole transport compounds are aromatic amine compounds, while the inventive compounds are fused polycyclic aromatic nitrogen compounds. Accordingly, it is the Office’s position given the inventive and comparative compounds are so different that the comparison between the inventive and comparative examples is not a proper side-by-side comparison.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the comparative examples are not comparable to the closest prior art given that neither Kim ‘523 nor Parham et al disclose aromatic amine compounds, i.e. both references disclose polycyclic aromatic nitrogen compounds.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER C. KOLLIAS whose telephone number is (571)-270-3869. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached on 571-272-7783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER C KOLLIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights