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 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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on September 16, 2021.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on September 15, 2022.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on May 9, 2023, May 14, 2024, November 13, 2024, November 7, 2025 have been considered. Signed copies of the corresponding 1449 forms have been included with this office action.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Many of the compounds in the specification, particularly those on pages 101 – 381 are small with low resolution and it makes the particular atoms in the compounds difficult to discern.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 (and therefore 2-11, and 20)is directed to a light emitting device comprising a green emission unit and a blue emission unit in which the green emission unit contains a first and second compound which are different from each other. The compounds are only defined by their emission wavelength and the difference in the wavelength from each other. No structural limitations or Chemical Formulas are provided. In the specification, numerous Platinum and Iridium-based compounds are provided, but this does not appear to provide sufficient support for any green dopants as claimed, including at least non-organometallic compounds and/or organometallic compounds containing other transition metals. Furthermore, in the Examples, only one example of an emitting layer containing two Ir-based dopants and only one example of an emitting layer containing an Ir-based dopant and a Pt-based compound has been provided. Therefore, it does not appear that Applicant provided sufficient species to show that Applicant was in of possession of the full breadth of the claims as required by the MPEP (see MPEP 2163-II-A-3-a-ii).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “A light emitting device comprising: an organic light-emitting device substrate comprising a structure wherein at least one blue emission unit and at least one green emission unit are stacked…” It is unclear if what is being claimed is a substrate for an organic light-emitting device, which typically glass and are not commonly understood to contain emitting units, or if the OLED is a substrate for some other component.
For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted as reading on either of the above interpretations.
Claims 2 – 20 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
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, 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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 – 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20180374409A1) in view of Lee 2 (US20040178720A1).
As per claims 1, 2, 9 – 16, 19 and 20 Lee teaches:
A light emitting device comprising an organic light-emitting device (OLED) substrate comprising a structure wherein at least one blue emission unit and at least one green emission unit are stacked, and wherein the OLED substrate emits a blue light and a green light, and a color control unit located in a path of light emitting from the OLED substrate, wherein the color control unit controls a color of light emitted from the OLED substrate, and an electronic apparatus comprising the light emitting device (Abstract: “A display apparatus including an OLED (organic light-emitting device) substrate having a structure in which at least one blue light-emitting unit and at least one green light-emitting unit are stacked, wherein the OLED substrate generates a mixed light of a blue light and a green light; and a color controller provided on the OLED substrate to adjust color of a light generated from the OLED substrate.”)
Lee teaches that the green emission layer comprises a phosphorescent light-emitting material ([0189]) and that the green-light emitting unit emits green light having a peak wavelength range of 510 nm to 540 nm ([0080]). Lee teaches representative phosphorescent dopants that include Ir-based dopants, such as PD8 – PD25 ([0114]) and Pt-based dopants, such as compounds 1-1 to 1-88 ([0188]). Lee does not explicitly teach:
Wherein the at least one green emission unit comprises a first compound and a second compound, the first compound and the second compound are different from each other, the first compound emits first light having a first spectrum, and λP(1) is a first emission peak wavelength of the first spectrum, as evaluated from a first photoluminescence spectrum measured from a first film comprising the first compound, the second compound emits second light having a second spectrum, and λP(2) is a second emission peak wavelength of the second spectrum, as evaluated from a second photoluminescence spectrum measured from a second film comprising the second compound, wherein the green emission unit comprises a layer comprising a mixture of the first compound and the second compound
An absolute value of the difference between λP(1) and λP(2) is from 0 nm to about 30 nm
λP(1) is about 500 to 520 nm and λP(2) is about 510 nm to about 540 nm
Lee 2 teaches an organic electroluminescent device with improved efficiency by the inclusion of two phosphorescent dopants, wherein each dopant is either iridium or platinum (Abstract). Lee 2 teaches that the first phosphorescent dopant is used to transfer energy received from the host to the second phosphorescent dopant ([0024]). Lee 2 teaches that the wavelength difference between the first and second phosphorescent dopants is preferably 50 nm or less ([0026]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the green emission layer of Lee with two phosphorescent dopants, such as a combination of the dopants taught by Lee in ([0114] and [0188]) wherein the difference in the luminescence peak between the first and second compounds is within 30 nm as claimed, motivated by the desire to predictably improve the efficiency of the dopants as taught by Lee 2 (Abstract). Since there is one emission layer in the green emitting unit of Lee, the combination of compounds would be mixed in a single layer as required by claim 2. As Lee 2 teaches that the first phosphorescent dopant transfers energy received from the host to the second phosphorescent dopant ([0024]), the first phosphorescent dopant is interpreted as a sensitizer as required by claim 10. The two compounds are phosphorescent compounds as required by claim 11. Because the green emission spectrum taught by Lee is about 510 to 540, it is reasonable to assume that each of the dopants would emit in the claimed range of claim 10. Because Lee 2 teaches that the combination of dopants can include Pt and Ir-based compounds, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select a combination of a Pt-based compound and an Ir-based compound as required by Condition 1 of claim 12 or to select a combination of two Ir-based compounds as required by Condition 2 of claim 12. Many of the organometallic compounds taught by Lee meet the structural requirements of claim 19, i.e. the platinum compound comprising a chemical bond between the Pt atom and a carbon of atom of the ligand and a chemical bond between the Pt atom and an oxygen atom of the ligand, and a Ir-based compound comprising bidentate ligands bonded to the iridium atom via two nitrogen atoms, via a nitrogen atom and a carbon atom or via two carbon atoms. As the two iridium-based compounds are different, it is reasonable to assume they will emit at slightly different wavelengths and it is the examiner’s position that Ir1 and Ir2 can be defined to meet the claimed Formula 1 of claims 15 and 16
As per claim 3, Lee teaches:
Wherein the OLED substrate comprises a tandem structure ([0021]: “The OLED substrate may include a tandem structure.”)
As per claims 4 and 5, Lee teaches:
Wherein a number of the at least one blue emission units is equal to or greater than a number of the at least one green emission units and the ratio of the number of the at least one blue emission units to the number of the at least one green emission units is about 1:1 to 10:1 (The device is described as having one blue light-emitting unit and one green light-emitting unit (Abstract). Therefore, there are an equal number of blue emission units and green emission units and the ratio is 1:1.)
As per claims 6 – 8, Lee teaches:
Wherein the color control unit comprises a first color control element for green conversion, comprising a first quantum dot, a second color control element for red conversion, comprising a second quantum dot, and a third color control element for blue conversion, wherein the color control unit further comprises a first color filter located on the first color control element and a second color filter located on the second color control element (Abstract: “The color controller includes a first color control element having a plurality of first quantum dots for green conversion; a second color control element having plurality of second quantum dots for red conversion; a third color control element for presenting a blue color; a first color filter provided on the first color control element; and a second color filter provided on the second color control element.”)
As per claims 13 and 14, the prior art combination is silent with respect to the dipole moment of the Pt and Ir-based phosphorescent dopants. However, the compounds taught by the prior art combination are the same as some of the compounds taught in the instant specification. Therefore, the property of dipole moment is considered to naturally flow from the product of the prior art combination (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be present. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20180374409A1) in view of Lee 2 (US20040178720A1) as applied to claims 1 – 16, 19 and 20 above, and further in view of Song (US20130015489A1).
As per claims 17 and 18, the prior art combination teaches that two iridium-based phosphorescent dopants may be used in a green emitting layer. The prior art combination does not specifically teach:
Wherein the light emitting device satisfies Equation 5 |HOMO(Ir1) – HOMO(Ir2)| is about 0.03 – 0.3 eV
Kanno teaches OLEDs with multiple dopants (Abstract), as shown in the band diagram in Fig. 4 and described in [0103 – 0105]. Kanno teaches that the difference in the HOMO level of the assistant dopant the dopant is less than or equal to 0.4 eV ([0105]) and that this relationship facilitates the transfer of holes and electrons and increases the intensity of the light ([0106]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select two iridium-based compounds with the claimed HOMO level relationship motivated by the desire to predictably facilitate hole and electron transfer and improve efficiency as taught by Kanno ([0051]).
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights