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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 03/16/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 4-9 and 18-20 have been canceled.
Claims 28-32 have been added.
Claims 1-3, 10-17, and 21-32 are pending.
Claims 1-3, 10-11, and 13-17 have been amended.
The amendments of claims 1 and 15 have overcome the rejections of claims 1-27 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the last Office Action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
The amendments of claim 13 have overcome the rejections of claims 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the last Office Action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
The amendments of claims 1-3, 10-11, and 13-17 have overcome:
the rejections of claims 1-9 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mo et al. (US 2022/0089610 A1, hereafter Mo) in view of Kwon et al. (US 20220069237 A1, hereafter Kwon), Pflumm et al. (US 2013/0207046 A1, hereafter Pflumm), and Yamamoto et al. (US 2007/0138950 A1, hereafter Yamamoto),
the rejections of claims 10, 13, 15-20, 23, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mo et al. (US 2022/0089610 A1) in view of Kwon et al. (US 20220069237 A1), Pflumm et al. (US 2013/0207046 A1), and Yamamoto et al. (US 2007/0138950 A1) as applied to claims 1-9 and 26 above, further in view of Liao et al. (US 2006/0040132 A1, hereafter Liao),
the rejections of claims 11-12 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mo et al. (US 2022/0089610 A1) in view of Kwon et al. (US 20220069237 A1), Pflumm et al. (US 2013/0207046 A1), and Yamamoto et al. (US 2007/0138950 A1) as applied to claims 1-9 and 26 above, further in view of Liao et al. (US 2006/0040132 A1) as applied to claims 10, 13, 15-20, 23, and 27 above, further in view of Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1, hereafter Seo), and
the rejections of claims 10-25 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mo et al. (US 2022/0089610 A1) in view of Kwon et al. (US 20220069237 A1), Pflumm et al. (US 2013/0207046 A1), and Yamamoto et al. (US 2007/0138950 A1) as applied to claims 1-9 and 26 above, further in view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0280159 A1, hereafter Kim), and Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1) as evidenced by Lee et al. (“Highly efficient phosphorescent polymer OLEDs fabricated by screen printing” Displays 2008, vol. 29, page 436-439, hereafter Lee) set forth in the last Office Action. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see the first paragraph of page 2-6 of the reply filed 03/16/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-9 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mo/Kwon/Pflumm/Yamamoto, the rejections of claims 10, 13, 15-20, 23, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mo/Kwon/Pflumm/Yamamoto/Liao, the rejections of claims 11-12 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mo/Kwon/Pflumm/Yamamoto/Liao/Seo, and the rejections of claims 10-25 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mo/Kwon/Pflumm/Yamamoto/Kim/Seo/Lee set forth in the Office Action of 12/17/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the amended claims 1 and 15 recites features including “each of R69 and R70 is independently hydrogen and the features are not disclosed by the cited references (page 4)
The cited reference refer to organic light emitting diodes wherein the second host compound is the Compound F11 of Mo (see sections 17, 47, 58, 69, and 88 of the last Office Action). The Compound F11 of Mo does not read on the limitation of Formula 9 of the amended claims. For that reason, the rejections are withdrawn.
However, the Compound 1 of Kwon, Compound 7 of Pflumm, and Compound p5-8 of Yamamoto (sections 23, 32, and 41 of the last Office Action) read on the limitations of the light emitting dopant of Formula 1, the hole transport material of Formula 11, and the electron transport material of Formula 15 of the amended claims. The references by Kwon, Pflumm, and Yamamoto are used in the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant argues that the claims recite a specific combination of the first host, the second host, the dopant, the hole transporting material, and the electron transporting material such that there is nothing that would have provided a reason or motivation for the ordinary skilled artisan to specifically select the combination that is set forth in the claims (page 5, par. 3).
The cited rejections have been withdrawn because the second host Compound F11 of Mo does not read on the limitation of Formula 9 the amended claims.
However, assuming arguendo other claimed compounds including the Compound 1 of Kwon, Compound 7 of Pflumm, and Compound p5-8 of Yamamoto read on the limitations of the light emitting dopant of Formula 1, the hole transport material of Formula 11, and the electron transport material of Formula 15 of the amended claims.
Mo does not require to use specific dopant, hole transporting layer, and electron transporting layer materials in the organic light emitting diode of Mo. That is, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to use known dopant, hole transporting layer, and electron transporting layer materials in the device of Mo.
The claimed compounds of Formulas 1, 11, and 15 are directed to known dopant, hole transporting, and electron transporting materials based on the teaching of Kwon, Pflumm, and Yamamoto. Kwon, Pflumm, and Yamamoto each teaches the benefits of the materials of Kwon, Pflumm, and Yamamoto. Kwon teaches that the organic light emitting diode comprising the compound of Kwon provides low driving voltage, high efficiency, long lifespan, and reduced roll off ([0146]). Pflumm teaches that the compound of Pflumm provides significant improvement with respect to lifetime, efficiency, and voltage ([0005]). Yamamoto teaches that the compound of Yamamoto provides significant improvement with respect to lifetime, efficiency, and voltage ([0005]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate the dopant material of Kwon, the hole transport layer material of Pflumm, and the electron transporting layer material of Yamamoto in the device of Mo to achieve the benefits.
For that reason the argument is not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that the beneficial luminous efficiency, luminous life span as well as low driving voltage of the OLED (Experimental Examples 1-34 in the specification) would not have been predictable from the combined teachings (page 6).
While the cited rejections have been withdrawn due to reasons outlined above, assuming arguendo, Applicant’s arguments based on the unexpected results are not found persuasive because the comparison was not made to the closest prior art.
An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). "A comparison of the claimed invention with the disclosure of each cited reference to determine the number of claim limitations in common with each reference, bearing in mind the relative importance of particular limitations, will usually yield the closest single prior art reference." In re Merchant, 575 F.2d 865, 868, 197 USPQ 785, 787 (CCPA 1978) (emphasis in original). Where the comparison is not identical with the reference disclosure, deviations therefrom should be explained, In re Finley, 174 F.2d 130, 81 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1949), and if not explained should be noted and evaluated, and if significant, explanation should be required. In re Armstrong, 280 F.2d 132, 126 USPQ 281 (CCPA 1960) (deviations from example were inconsequential). See MPEP 716.02(e).
The organic light emitting diodes used in the test (Examples 1 to 34 and Comparative Examples 1 to 4 of the instant specification) use Compound GEH2 as the second host. The Compound GEH2 has dibenzofuran as the core structure. However, the closest prior art by Mo (i.e. Example 4 in Table 12) requires a host compound represented by Formula 1 of Mo ([0008]) having benzo naphtho furan as the core structure. Thus, the comparison was not made to the closest prior art.
For at least this reason, the argument is not found persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1 and 15, Applicant recites “each of R43 and R44 is independently hydrogen”, “each of R69 and R70 is independently hydrogen”, “each of R63 to R66 is independently hydrogen”, and “R73 is hydrogen”. Applicant use protium and hydrogen to mean protium (or hydrogen). As stated in the instant specification ([0066]), hydrogen refers to protium. It is suggested to use a single consistent language to mean the same chemical structure (or element).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-3, 26, 28-29, and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2019/0198780 A1, hereafter Kim ‘780) in view of Kwon et al. (US 20220069237 A1, hereafter Kwon), Pflumm et al. (US 2013/0207046 A1, hereafter Pflumm), and Yamamoto et al. (US 2007/0138950 A1, hereafter Yamamoto) and Katakura et al. (JP 2013/131767 A, machine translated English version is referred to, hereafter Katakura).
Regarding claims 1-3, 26, 28-29, and 31-32, Kim ‘780 discloses a composition for an organic light emitting diode, wherein the composition comprises a first organic compound of Formula 1 and a second organic compound of Formula 7 ([0007]-[0020]).
Kim ‘780 exemplifies Compound 87 as the Formula 1 ([0058]) and Compound E-99 ([0087]).
PNG
media_image1.png
449
761
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compound E-99 of Kim ‘780 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 7 and the specific embodiment GHH4 of the instant claims.
Kim ‘780 exemplifies an organic light emitting diode (Example 23 in [0181] and Table 4) comprising a substrate, a first electrode (ITO), a hole transport layer, an emissive layer (Compound 1 as a first host, Compound E-99 as a second host, a phosphorescent dopant), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode (Al).
The organic light emitting diode does not comprise the Compound 87 of Kim ‘780; however, Kim ‘780 does teach the composition of Kim ‘780 can be used as the host materials with a phosphorescent dopant ([0115]), and the Compound 87 of Kim ‘780 is an example of Formula 1 ([0058]) which is a material of the composition of Kim ‘780 ([0007], [0014]).
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 organic light emitting diode of Kim ‘780 by substituting the first host material with Compound 87 of Kim ‘780, as taught by Kim ‘780.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the hosts of Formula 1 of Kim ‘780 in the device of Kim ‘780 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic light emitting diode of Kim ‘780 comprising a substrate, a first electrode (ITO), a hole transport layer, an emissive layer (Compound 87 of Kim ‘780 as a first host, Compound E-99 of Kim ‘780 as a second host, a phosphorescent dopant), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode (Al).
The phosphorescent dopant of the Organic light emitting diode of Kim ‘780 does not read on Applicant’s Formula 1; however, Kim ‘780 does teach that an Ir complex can be used as the phosphorescent dopant of the device of Kim ‘780 ([0102]).
Kwon discloses an organometallic compound (Formula 1 in [0007]) used as the phosphorescent dopant of an organic light emitting diode ([0029], [0002]) and exemplifies Compound 1 ([0145]). Kwon teaches the compound of Kwon emits green light ([0147], [0157]).
PNG
media_image2.png
286
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Compound 1 of Kwon has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 and the specific embodiment, Compound 1 of the instant claims.
Kwon teaches that the organic light emitting diode comprising the compound of Kwon provides low driving voltage, high efficiency, long lifespan, and reduced roll off ([0146]).
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 Organic light emitting diode of Kim ‘780 by substituting the emissive layer dopant with the Compound 1 of Kwon, as taught by Kim ‘780 and Kwon.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide low driving voltage, high efficiency, long lifespan, and reduced roll off, based on the teaching of Kwon.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the emissive layer phosphorescent dopants would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic light emitting diode of Kim ‘780 as modified by Kwon comprising a substrate, a first electrode (ITO), a hole transport layer, an emissive layer (Compound 87 of Kim ‘780 as a host, Compound E-99 of Kim ‘780 as a host, Compound 1 of Kwon as a dopant), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode (Al).
The organic light emitting diode does not have a hole transport layer comprising a compound of Applicant’s Formula 11; however, Kim ‘780 does teach that a hole transport layer can be incorporated in the device of Kim ‘780 ([0116]).
Pflumm discloses a compound used as the hole transport material of an organic light emitting diode ([0004], [0006]) and exemplifies Compound 7 ([0079]).
PNG
media_image3.png
292
507
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Compound 7 of Pflumm has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 11 and the specific embodiment HTL1 of the instant claims.
Pflumm teaches that the compound of Pflumm provides significant improvement with respect to lifetime, efficiency, and voltage ([0005]).
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 Organic light emitting diode of Kim ‘780 as modified by Kwon by substituting the hole transport layer material with the Compound 7 of Pflumm, as taught by Kim ‘780 and Pflumm.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide significant improvement with respect to lifetime, efficiency, and voltage, based on the teaching of Pflumm.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Organic light emitting diode of Kim ‘780 as modified by Kwon and Pflumm comprising a substrate, a first electrode (ITO), a hole transport layer (Compound 7 of Pflumm), an emissive layer (Compound 87 of Kim ‘780 as a host, Compound E-99 of Kim ‘780 as a host, Compound 1 of Kwon as a dopant), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode (Al).
The organic light emitting diode does not have an electron transport layer comprising a compound of Applicant’s Formula 15; however, Kim ‘780 does teach an electron transport layer can be incorporated in the device of Kim ‘780 ([0116]).
Yamamoto discloses a compound used as the electron transport material of an organic light emitting diode ([0012]-[0013], [0034]) and exemplifies a compound ([0035], the 8th compound on page 5, hereafter Compound p5-8).
PNG
media_image4.png
253
544
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Compound p5-8 of Yamamoto has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 15 and the specific embodiment ETL2 of the instant claims.
Yamamoto teaches that the compound of Yamamoto provides significant improvement with respect to lifetime, efficiency, and voltage ([0005]).
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 Organic light emitting diode of Kim ‘780 as modified by Kwon and Pflumm by substituting the electron transport layer material with the Compound p5-8 of Yamamoto, as taught by Yamamoto.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide significant improvement with respect to lifetime, efficiency, and voltage, based on the teaching of Yamamoto.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Organic light emitting diode of Kim ‘780 as modified by Kwon, Pflumm, and Yamamoto comprising a substrate, a first electrode (ITO), a hole transport layer (Compound 7 of Pflumm), an emissive layer (Compound 87 of Kim ‘780 as a host, Compound E-99 of Kim ‘780 as a host, Compound 1 of Kwon as a dopant), an electron transport layer (Compound p5-8 of Yamamoto), and a second electrode (Al).
In the Compound 87 of Kim ‘780, the carbazolyl group at the position corresponding to R2 of Formula 1 of Kim ‘780 is unsubstituted; however, Kim ‘780 does teach R2 can be a substituted C3 to C30 heterocyclic group ([0012]); the substituent can be a phenyl group ([0026]).
Katakura discloses a carbazole compound used as the host material of an organic light emitting diode ([0013], Example device in [0251]-[0260]). Katakura teaches the introduction of an aromatic substituent to the 1 to 8 positions of carbazole containing compound provides decreased driving voltage and improved emission efficiency ([0037]).
Katakura exemplifies a 3-mesityl group as the aromatic substituent to the carbazole (see compounds (1)-(3) in [0088]).
PNG
media_image5.png
157
490
media_image5.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 modified the Compound 87 of Kim ‘780 of the Organic light emitting diode of Kim ‘780 as modified by Kwon, Pflumm, and Yamamoto by substituting the unsubstituted carbazole group with 3-mesityl carbazole group, as taught by Kim ‘780 and Katakura.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide decreased driving voltage and improved emission efficiency, based on the teaching of Katakura.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of unsubstituted carbazole with 3-mesityl carbazole at the position corresponding to R2 of Formula 1 of Kim ‘780 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image6.png
310
666
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Kim ‘780 as modified by Katakura which has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 9 of the instant claims. It is noted that the dibenzofuranyl group reads on the limitation of “phenyl” at the positions R51 and R52 because there is no limitation on the substituent of the “phenyl”. For instance, dibenzofuran can be interpreted as a phenyl group substituted by phenyloxy and hydrogen wherein the phenyloxy and hydrogen are joined to form a ring.
The modification provides Organic light emitting diode of Kim ‘780 as modified by Kwon, Pflumm, and Yamamoto comprising a substrate, a first electrode (ITO), a hole transport layer (Compound 7 of Pflumm), an emissive layer (Compound of Kim ‘780 as modified by Katakura as a host, Compound E-99 of Kim ‘780 as a host, Compound 1 of Kwon as a dopant), an electron transport layer (Compound p5-8 of Yamamoto), and a second electrode (Al).
Claims 10, 13, 15-17, 23, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2019/0198780 A1) in view of Kwon et al. (US 20220069237 A1), Pflumm et al. (US 2013/0207046 A1), and Yamamoto et al. (US 2007/0138950 A1) and Katakura et al. (JP 2013/131767 A, machine translated English version is referred to) as applied to claims 1-3, 26, 28-29, and 31-32, further in view of Liao et al. (US 2006/0040132 A1, hereafter Liao).
Regarding claims 10, 13, 15-17, 23, and 27, Organic light emitting diode of Kim ‘780 as modified by Kwon, Pflumm, Yamamoto, and Katakura reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a substrate, a first electrode (ITO), a hole transport layer (Compound 7 of Pflumm), an emissive layer (Compound of Kim ‘780 as modified by Katakura as a host, Compound E-99 of Kim ‘780 as a host, Compound 1 of Kwon as a dopant), an electron transport layer (Compound p5-8 of Yamamoto), and a second electrode (Al).
The device has single emissive layer emitting green light and does not emit white light.
PNG
media_image7.png
683
747
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Liao discloses a tandem white organic light emitting device ([0002], [0008], Figs. 3 and 8) comprising a plurality of white emitting parts (“EL units”) wherein two neighboring emitting parts are separated by a charge generation layer (“connector”). Liao teaches each emitting part can comprise multiple organic layers including a HIL, a HTL, an electron blocking layer, an emissive layer, a hole blocking layer, a ETL, and a EIL ([0052], Fig. 5). Liao teaches the materials used to construct the white emitting parts can be the same materials as the conventional white OLED from prior arts ([0055]). Liao teaches combination of blue (bottom layer), green (middle layer), and red (top layer) can provide white light ([0047], Fig. 2).
Liao teaches that the white OLED of Liao provide high luminance efficiency and high brightness ([0009]).
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 Organic light emitting diode of Kim ‘780 as modified by Kwon, Pflumm, Yamamoto, and Katakura by stacking three EL layers and two charge generation layers between the first and the second electrodes, wherein each EL unit has the same organic layer structure as the Organic light emitting diode of Kim ‘780 as modified by Kwon, Pflumm, Yamamoto, and Katakura except that the emissive layer dopant of each EL unit is each a blue, green, and red dopant, as taught by Liao.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide white light emitting device with high luminance efficiency and high brightness, based on the teaching of Liao.
Moreover, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Organic light emitting diode of Kim ‘780 as modified by Kwon, Pflumm, Yamamoto, and Liao comprising a substrate, a first electrode, a first hole transport layer (1st HTL), a first emitting material layer (1st EML), a first electron transport layer (1st ETL), a first charge generation layer (1st CGL), a 2nd HTL, a 2nd EML, and a 2nd ETL, a 2nd CGL, a 3rd HTL, a 3rd EML, a 3rd ETL, and a cathode, wherein each HTL comprises the Compound 7 of Pflumm; each ETL comprises the Compound p5-8 of Yamamoto; each EML is a combination of blue, green, red sublayers, wherein each sublayer has same host materials of Compound of Kim ‘780 as modified by Katakura and Compound E-99 of Kim ‘780 except dopants; and dopants are each a blue dopant, a green dopant (Compound 1 of Kwon), and a red dopant.
Claims 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2019/0198780 A1) in view of Kwon et al. (US 20220069237 A1), Pflumm et al. (US 2013/0207046 A1), and Yamamoto et al. (US 2007/0138950 A1), Katakura et al. (JP 2013/131767 A, machine translated English version is referred to), and Liao et al. (US 2006/0040132 A1) as applied to claims 10, 13, 15-17, 23, and 27 above, further in view of Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1, hereafter Seo).
Regarding claims 11-12 and 14, the Organic light emitting diode of Kim ‘780 as modified by Kwon, Pflumm, Yamamoto, Katakura, and Liao reads on all the features of claims 10, 13, 15-17, 23, and 27 as outlined above.
The device comprises a substrate, a first electrode, 1st HTL, 1st EML, 1st ETL, 1st CGL, a 2nd HTL, a 2nd EML, and a 2nd ETL, a 2nd CGL, a 3rd HTL, a 3rd EML, a 3rd ETL, and a cathode, wherein each HTL comprises the Compound 7 of Pflumm; each ETL comprises the Compound p5-8 of Yamamoto; each EML is a combination of blue, green, red sublayers, wherein each sublayer has same host materials of Compound of Kim ‘780 as modified by Katakura and Compound E-99 of Kim ‘780 except dopants; and dopants are each a blue dopant, a green dopant (Compound 1 of Kwon), and a red dopant.
In each emitting part, there are not mixed layers disposed between the emitting material layer and the hole transport layer and between the emitting material layer and the electron transport layer.
Seo teaches that a mixed layer between two neighboring organic layers of an organic light emitting diode (“organic light-emitting device”) contains both the neighboring organic layer materials (“mixed layer” (105) in Fig. 1B; [0050]; 1st and 2nd “mixed region” in Fig. 19).
Seo teaches that by introducing a mixed layer in-between two neighboring organic layers (device structure of Fig. 1B), the energy barrier is lowered and more carriers can be injected ([0054]).
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 Organic light emitting diode of Kim ‘780 as modified by Kwon, Pflumm, Yamamoto, Katakura, and Liao by incorporating mixed layers between the hole transport layer and emitting material layer and between the emitting material layer and the electron transport layer, wherein each mixed layer comprises the materials same as the materials of the neighboring layers, as taught by Seo.
The motivation of doing so would provide the organic optoelectronic device with lowered energy barrier and improved carrier injection, based on the teaching of Seo.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Organic light emitting diode of Kim ‘780 as modified by Kwon, Pflumm, Yamamoto, Katakura, Liao, and Seo comprising a substrate, a first electrode, 1st HTL, a mixed layer, a 1st EML, a mixed layer, a 1st ETL, a 1st CGL, a 2nd HTL, a mixed layer, a 2nd EML, a mixed layer, a 2nd ETL, a 2nd CGL, a 3rd HTL, a mixed layer, a 3rd EML, a mixed layer, a 3rd ETL, and a cathode, wherein each HTL comprises the Compound 7 of Pflumm; each ETL comprises the Compound p5-8 of Yamamoto; each EML is a combination of blue, green, and red sublayers, wherein each sublayer has same host materials of Compound of Kim ‘780 as modified by Katakura and Compound E-99 of Kim ‘780 except dopants; the dopants are each a blue dopant, a green dopant (Compound 1 of Kwon), and a red dopant; and each mixed layer comprises the materials same as the materials of the neighboring layers.
With respect to claims 11-12 and 14, the second emitting part has the structure of a 2nd HTL, a mixed layer, a blue sublayer, a green sublayer (the hosts and Compound 1 of Kwon), a red sublayer, a mixed layer, and a 2nd ETL. The second emitting part is equated with a 2nd HTL (Compound 7 of Pflumm), a first layer (“mixed layer”), a third layer (“blue sublayer”), a second layer (“green sublayer” containing Compound of Kim ‘780 as modified by Katakura, Compound E-99 of Kim ‘780, and Compound 1 of Kwon), a red sublayer, a mixed layer, and a 2nd ETL (Compound p5-8 of Yamamoto), meeting all the limitations of claims 11-12 and 14.
Claims 10-17, 21-25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2019/0198780 A1) in view of Kwon et al. (US 20220069237 A1), Pflumm et al. (US 2013/0207046 A1), Yamamoto et al. (US 2007/0138950 A1), and Katakura et al. (JP 2013/131767 A, machine translated English version is referred to) as applied to claims 1-3 and 26 above, further in view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0280159 A1, hereafter Kim ‘159), and Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1) as evidenced by Lee et al. (“Highly efficient phosphorescent polymer OLEDs fabricated by screen printing” Displays 2008, vol. 29, page 436-439, hereafter Lee).
Regarding claims 10-17, 21-25, and 27, Organic light emitting diode of Kim ‘780 as modified by Kwon, Pflumm, Yamamoto, and Katakura reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a substrate, a first electrode (ITO), a hole transport layer (Compound 7 of Pflumm), an emissive layer (Compound of Kim ‘780 as modified by Katakura as a host, Compound E-99 of Kim ‘780 as a host, Compound 1 of Kwon as a dopant), an electron transport layer (Compound p5-8 of Yamamoto), and a second electrode (Al).
The device has single emissive layer emitting green light and does not emit white light.
Kim ‘159 discloses a white light emitting device (Fig. 1, [0003], [0010]) comprising a first electrode (10), a 1st emitting part (100) including a blue emitting layer, a 1st CGL (410), a 2nd emitting part (200) emitting light having wavelength longer than blue, a 2nd CGL (420), a 3rd emitting part (300) including a blue emitting layer, and a second electrode (20).
Kim ‘159 teaches the 2nd emitting part can comprise a red emitting layer (253) and a green emitting layer (257) ([0085]-[0086], Fig. 3C).
Kim ‘159 teaches the organic light emitting device of Kim ‘159 provides improved color reproduction range and emitting efficiency ([0008]).
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 Organic light emitting diode of Kim ‘780 as modified by Kwon, Pflumm, Yamamoto, and Katakura by incorporating the hole transport layer material, the electron transport layer material, and the emissive layer materials into the hole transport layer, the electron transport layer, and the green emitting layer of the second emitting part of the device of Kim ‘159, as taught by Kim ‘159.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide provides improved color reproduction range and emitting efficiency.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Organic light emitting diode of Kim ‘780 as modified by Kwon, Pflumm, Yamamoto, Katakura, and Kim ‘159 comprising a substrate, a first electrode, a 1st HTL, a 1st emitting material layer (blue), a 1st ETL, a 1st CGL, a 2nd HTL, a 2nd red emitting material layer, a 2nd green emitting material layer (Compound of Kim ‘780 as modified by Katakura, Compound E-99 of Kim ‘780, and Compound 1 of Kwon), 2nd ETL, a 2nd CGL, a 3rd HTL, a 3rd emitting material layer (blue), a 3rd ETL, and a second electrode, wherein each HTL comprises the Compound 7 of Pflumm; each ETL comprises the Compound p5-8 of Yamamoto.
In each emitting part, there is no mixed layer disposed between the emitting material layer and the hole transport layer and between the emitting material layer and the electron transport layer.
Seo teaches that a mixed layer between two neighboring organic layers of an organic light emitting diode (“organic light-emitting device”) contains both the neighboring organic layer materials (“mixed layer” (105) in Fig. 1B; [0050]; 1st and 2nd “mixed region” in Fig. 19).
Seo teaches that by introducing a mixed layer in-between two neighboring organic layers (device structure of Fig. 1B), the energy barrier is lowered and more carriers can be injected ([0054]).
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 Organic light emitting diode of Kim ‘780 as modified by Kwon, Pflumm, Yamamoto, Katakura, and Kim ‘159 by incorporating a mixed layer between the hole transport layer and emitting material layer and a mixed layer between the emitting material layer and the electron transport layer, as taught by Seo.
The motivation of doing so would provide the organic optoelectronic device with lowered energy barrier and improved carrier injection, based on the teaching of Seo.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide Organic light emitting diode of Kim ‘780 as modified by Kwon, Pflumm, Yamamoto, Katakura, Kim ‘159, and Seo comprising a substrate, a first electrode, a 1st HTL, a mixed layer, a 1st emitting material layer (blue), a mixed layer, a 1st ETL, a 1st CGL, a 2nd HTL, a mixed layer, a 2nd red emitting material layer, a 2nd green emitting material layer (Compound of Kim ‘780 as modified by Katakura as a host, Compound E-99 of Kim ‘780 as a host, Compound 1 of Kwon as a dopant), a mixed layer, 2nd ETL, a 2nd CGL, a 3rd HTL, a mixed layer, a 3rd emitting material layer (blue), a mixed layer, a 3rd ETL, and a second electrode, wherein each HTL comprises the Compound 7 of Pflumm; each ETL comprises the Compound p5-8 of Yamamoto; and each mixed layer comprises the materials same as the materials of the neighboring layers.
The device is equated with an organic light emitting diode comprising a substrate, a first electrode, a 1st HTL, a mixed layer, a 1st emitting material layer (blue), a mixed layer, a 1st ETL, a 1st CGL, a 2nd HTL, a mixed layer, a first layer (“2nd red emitting material layer”), a third layer (“2nd green emitting material layer” comprising Compound 87 of Mo as a host, Compound E-99 of Kim ‘780 as a host, Compound 1 of Kwon as a dopant), a second layer (“mixed layer” comprising Compound of Kim ‘780 as modified by Katakura as a host, Compound E-99 of Kim ‘780 as a host, Compound 1 of Kwon as a dopant), 2nd ETL, a 2nd CGL, a 3rd HTL, a mixed layer, a 3rd emitting material layer (blue), a mixed layer, a 3rd ETL, and a second electrode, wherein each HTL comprises the Compound 7 of Pflumm; each ETL comprises the Compound p5-8 of Yamamoto; and each mixed layer comprises all the materials included in the neighboring layers, meeting all the limitations of claims 10-17, 21, 23-24, and 27.
The Organic light emitting diode of Kim ‘780 as modified by Kwon, Pflumm, Yamamoto, Katakura, Kim ‘159, and Seo reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the Compound 1 of Kwon emits yellow green light.
It is reasonable to presume that the Compound 1 of Kwon emits yellow green light.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
Kwon teaches that the compound of Kwon emits green light of wavelength of 500 nm to 600 nm ([0147], [0157]).
Lee evidenced that the emission spectrum of an Ir complex (i.e. Ir(ppy)3) has the FWHM of around 100 nm and the tails of emission spectrum at the long wavelength side stretches out over 150 nm from the peak wavelength (Fig. 2). Considering both Ir complex of Lee and the Compound 1 of Kwon has same Ir metal center coordinated by three phenyl pyridine based ligands, both compounds have similar optoelectronic properties including at least FWHM of the emission spectrum.
Thus, there must be a non-zero intensity of light in the yellow region (i.e. around 570 to 590 nm) for the emission spectrum of the Compound 1 of Kwon such that the Compound 1 of Kwon must have non-zero yellow green emission light, and the third layer of the Organic light emitting diode of Kim ‘780 as modified by Kwon, Pflumm, Yamamoto, Kim ‘159, and Seo should be a yellow green emitting layer, meeting all the limitations of claims 22 and 25.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the Organic light emitting diode of Kim ‘780 as modified by Kwon, Pflumm, Yamamoto, Katakura, Kim ‘159, and Seo is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Claims 1-3, 26, and 28-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over No et al. (US 2020/01192850 A1, hereafter No) in view of Kwon et al. (US 20220069237 A1), Pflumm et al. (US 2013/0207046 A1), and Yamamoto et al. (US 2007/0138950 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, 26, and 28-32, No discloses an organic light emitting diode comprising a compound of Formula 1 used as a host and a compound of Formula 2 used as a host ([0008]-[0009], [0161]).
No exemplifies an organic light emitting diode (Example 25 in [0217]-[0219] and Table 19) comprising a substrate, a first electrode (ITO), a hole transport layer, an emissive layer (Compound 139 as a first host, Compound 2-42 as a second host, and a phosphorescent dopant), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode (Al).
PNG
media_image8.png
377
700
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The Compound 139 of No has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 9 and the specific embodiment GEH3 of the instant claims.
The Compound 2-42 of No has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 7 and the specific embodiment GHH4 of the instant claims.
The phosphorescent dopant of the Organic light emitting diode of No does not read on Applicant’s Formula 1; however, No does teach that phosphorescent material can be used as the light emitting material of the device of No ([0176]).
Kwon discloses an organometallic compound (Formula 1 in [0007]) used as the phosphorescent dopant of an organic light emitting diode ([0029], [0002]) and exemplifies Compound 1 ([0145]). Kwon teaches the compound of Kwon emits green light ([0147], [0157]).
PNG
media_image2.png
286
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Compound 1 of Kwon has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 and the specific embodiment, Compound 1 of the instant claims.
Kwon teaches that the organic light emitting diode comprising the compound of Kwon provides low driving voltage, high efficiency, long lifespan, and reduced roll off ([0146]).
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 Organic light emitting diode of No by substituting the emissive layer dopant with the Compound 1 of Kwon, as taught by No and Kwon.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide low driving voltage, high efficiency, long lifespan, and reduced roll off, based on the teaching of Kwon.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the emissive layer phosphorescent dopants would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic light emitting diode of No as modified by Kwon comprising a substrate, a first electrode (ITO), a hole transport layer, an emissive layer (Compound 139 of No as a host, Compound 2-42 of No as a host, Compound 1 of Kwon as a dopant), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode (Al).
The organic light emitting diode does not have a hole transport layer comprising a compound of Applicant’s Formula 11; however, No does teach that an arylamine based compound can be used as the hole transport layer material ([0173]).
Pflumm discloses a compound used as the hole transport material of an organic light emitting diode ([0004], [0006]) and exemplifies Compound 7 ([0079]).
PNG
media_image3.png
292
507
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Compound 7 of Pflumm has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 11 and the specific embodiment HTL1 of the instant claims.
Pflumm teaches that the compound of Pflumm provides significant improvement with respect to lifetime, efficiency, and voltage ([0005]).
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 Organic light emitting diode of No as modified by Kwon by substituting the hole transport layer material with the Compound 7 of Pflumm, as taught by No and Pflumm.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide significant improvement with respect to lifetime, efficiency, and voltage, based on the teaching of Pflumm.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Organic light emitting diode of No as modified by Kwon and Pflumm comprising a substrate, a first electrode (ITO), a hole transport layer (Compound 7 of Pflumm), an emissive layer (Compound 139 of No as a host, Compound 2-42 of No as a host, Compound 1 of Kwon as a dopant), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode (Al).
The organic light emitting diode does not have an electron transport layer comprising a compound of Applicant’s Formula 15; however, No does teach an electron transport layer (“electron transfer layer”) can be incorporated in the organic layer of the device of No ([0150]).
Yamamoto discloses a compound used as the electron transport material of an organic light emitting diode ([0012]-[0013], [0034]) and exemplifies a compound ([0035], the 8th compound on page 5, hereafter Compound p5-8).
PNG
media_image4.png
253
544
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Compound p5-8 of Yamamoto has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 15 and the specific embodiment ETL2 of the instant claims.
Yamamoto teaches that the compound of Yamamoto provides significant improvement with respect to lifetime, efficiency, and voltage ([0005]).
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 Organic light emitting diode of No as modified by Kwon and Pflumm by substituting the electron transport layer material with the Compound p5-8 of Yamamoto, as taught by Yamamoto.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide significant improvement with respect to lifetime, efficiency, and voltage, based on the teaching of Yamamoto.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Organic light emitting diode of No as modified by Kwon, Pflumm, and Yamamoto comprising a substrate, a first electrode (ITO), a hole transport layer (Compound 7 of Pflumm), an emissive layer (Compound 139 of No as a host, Compound 2-42 of No as a host, Compound 1 of Kwon as a dopant), an electron transport layer (Compound p5-8 of Yamamoto), and a second electrode (Al).
Claims 10, 13, 15-17, 23, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over No et al. (US 2020/01192850 A1) in view of Kwon et al. (US 20220069237 A1), Pflumm et al. (US 2013/0207046 A1), and Yamamoto et al. (US 2007/0138950 A1) as applied to claims 1-3, 26, and 28-32, further in view of Liao et al. (US 2006/0040132 A1).
Regarding claims 10, 13, 15-17, 23, and 27, Organic light emitting diode of No as modified by Kwon, Pflumm, Yamamoto, and Katakura reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a substrate, a first electrode (ITO), a hole transport layer (Compound 7 of Pflumm), an emissive layer (Compound of No as modified by Katakura as a host, Compound 2-42 of No as a host, Compound 1 of Kwon as a dopant), an electron transport layer (Compound p5-8 of Yamamoto), and a second electrode (Al).
The device has single emissive layer emitting green light and does not emit white light.
PNG
media_image7.png
683
747
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Liao discloses a tandem white organic light emitting device ([0002], [0008], Figs. 3 and 8) comprising a plurality of white emitting parts (“EL units”) wherein two neighboring emitting parts are separated by a charge generation layer (“connector”). Liao teaches each emitting part can comprise multiple organic layers including a HIL, a HTL, an electron blocking layer, an emissive layer, a hole blocking layer, a ETL, and a EIL ([0052], Fig. 5). Liao teaches the materials used to construct the white emitting parts can be the same materials as the conventional white OLED from prior arts ([0055]). Liao teaches combination of blue (bottom layer), green (middle layer), and red (top layer) can provide white light ([0047], Fig. 2).
Liao teaches that the white OLED of Liao provide high luminance efficiency and high brightness ([0009]).
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 Organic light emitting diode of No as modified by Kwon, Pflumm, Yamamoto, and Katakura by stacking three EL layers and two charge generation layers between the first and the second electrodes, wherein each EL unit has the same organic layer structure as the Organic light emitting diode of No as modified by Kwon, Pflumm, Yamamoto, and Katakura except that the emissive layer dopant of each EL unit is each a blue, green, and red dopant, as taught by Liao.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide white light emitting device with high luminance efficiency and high brightness, based on the teaching of Liao.
Moreover, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Organic light emitting diode of No as modified by Kwon, Pflumm, Yamamoto, and Liao comprising a substrate, a first electrode, a first hole transport layer (1st HTL), a first emitting material layer (1st EML), a first electron transport layer (1st ETL), a first charge generation layer (1st CGL), a 2nd HTL, a 2nd EML, and a 2nd ETL, a 2nd CGL, a 3rd HTL, a 3rd EML, a 3rd ETL, and a cathode, wherein each HTL comprises the Compound 7 of Pflumm; each ETL comprises the Compound p5-8 of Yamamoto; each EML is a combination of blue, green, red sublayers, wherein each sublayer has same host materials of Compound of No as modified by Katakura and Compound 2-42 of No except dopants; and dopants are each a blue dopant, a green dopant (Compound 1 of Kwon), and a red dopant.
Claims 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over No et al. (US 2020/01192850 A1) in view of Kwon et al. (US 20220069237 A1), Pflumm et al. (US 2013/0207046 A1), and Yamamoto et al. (US 2007/0138950 A1), and Liao et al. (US 2006/0040132 A1) as applied to claims 10, 13, 15-17, 23, and 27 above, further in view of Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1).
Regarding claims 11-12 and 14, the Organic light emitting diode of No as modified by Kwon, Pflumm, Yamamoto, Katakura, and Liao reads on all the features of claims 10, 13, 15-17, 23, and 27 as outlined above.
The device comprises a substrate, a first electrode, 1st HTL, 1st EML, 1st ETL, 1st CGL, a 2nd HTL, a 2nd EML, and a 2nd ETL, a 2nd CGL, a 3rd HTL, a 3rd EML, a 3rd ETL, and a cathode, wherein each HTL comprises the Compound 7 of Pflumm; each ETL comprises the Compound p5-8 of Yamamoto; each EML is a combination of blue, green, red sublayers, wherein each sublayer has same host materials of Compound of No as modified by Katakura and Compound 2-42 of No except dopants; and dopants are each a blue dopant, a green dopant (Compound 1 of Kwon), and a red dopant.
In each emitting part, there are not mixed layers disposed between the emitting material layer and the hole transport layer and between the emitting material layer and the electron transport layer.
Seo teaches that a mixed layer between two neighboring organic layers of an organic light emitting diode (“organic light-emitting device”) contains both the neighboring organic layer materials (“mixed layer” (105) in Fig. 1B; [0050]; 1st and 2nd “mixed region” in Fig. 19).
Seo teaches that by introducing a mixed layer in-between two neighboring organic layers (device structure of Fig. 1B), the energy barrier is lowered and more carriers can be injected ([0054]).
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 Organic light emitting diode of No as modified by Kwon, Pflumm, Yamamoto, Katakura, and Liao by incorporating mixed layers between the hole transport layer and emitting material layer and between the emitting material layer and the electron transport layer, wherein each mixed layer comprises the materials same as the materials of the neighboring layers, as taught by Seo.
The motivation of doing so would provide the organic optoelectronic device with lowered energy barrier and improved carrier injection, based on the teaching of Seo.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Organic light emitting diode of No as modified by Kwon, Pflumm, Yamamoto, Katakura, Liao, and Seo comprising a substrate, a first electrode, 1st HTL, a mixed layer, a 1st EML, a mixed layer, a 1st ETL, a 1st CGL, a 2nd HTL, a mixed layer, a 2nd EML, a mixed layer, a 2nd ETL, a 2nd CGL, a 3rd HTL, a mixed layer, a 3rd EML, a mixed layer, a 3rd ETL, and a cathode, wherein each HTL comprises the Compound 7 of Pflumm; each ETL comprises the Compound p5-8 of Yamamoto; each EML is a combination of blue, green, and red sublayers, wherein each sublayer has same host materials of Compound of No as modified by Katakura and Compound 2-42 of No except dopants; the dopants are each a blue dopant, a green dopant (Compound 1 of Kwon), and a red dopant; and each mixed layer comprises the materials same as the materials of the neighboring layers.
With respect to claims 11-12 and 14, the second emitting part has the structure of a 2nd HTL, a mixed layer, a blue sublayer, a green sublayer (the hosts and Compound 1 of Kwon), a red sublayer, a mixed layer, and a 2nd ETL. The second emitting part is equated with a 2nd HTL (Compound 7 of Pflumm), a first layer (“mixed layer”), a third layer (“blue sublayer”), a second layer (“green sublayer” containing Compound of No as modified by Katakura, Compound 2-42 of No, and Compound 1 of Kwon), a red sublayer, a mixed layer, and a 2nd ETL (Compound p5-8 of Yamamoto), meeting all the limitations of claims 11-12 and 14.
Claims 10-17, 21-25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over No et al. (US 2020/01192850 A1) in view of Kwon et al. (US 20220069237 A1), Pflumm et al. (US 2013/0207046 A1), Yamamoto et al. (US 2007/0138950 A1) as applied to claims 1-3 and 26 above, further in view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0280159 A1), and Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1) as evidenced by Lee et al. (“Highly efficient phosphorescent polymer OLEDs fabricated by screen printing” Displays 2008, vol. 29, page 436-439).
Regarding claims 10-17, 21-25, and 27, Organic light emitting diode of No as modified by Kwon, Pflumm, Yamamoto, and Katakura reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a substrate, a first electrode (ITO), a hole transport layer (Compound 7 of Pflumm), an emissive layer (Compound of No as modified by Katakura as a host, Compound 2-42 of No as a host, Compound 1 of Kwon as a dopant), an electron transport layer (Compound p5-8 of Yamamoto), and a second electrode (Al).
The device has single emissive layer emitting green light and does not emit white light.
Kim ‘159 discloses a white light emitting device (Fig. 1, [0003], [0010]) comprising a first electrode (10), a 1st emitting part (100) including a blue emitting layer, a 1st CGL (410), a 2nd emitting part (200) emitting light having wavelength longer than blue, a 2nd CGL (420), a 3rd emitting part (300) including a blue emitting layer, and a second electrode (20).
Kim ‘159 teaches the 2nd emitting part can comprise a red emitting layer (253) and a green emitting layer (257) ([0085]-[0086], Fig. 3C).
Kim ‘159 teaches the organic light emitting device of Kim ‘159 provides improved color reproduction range and emitting efficiency ([0008]).
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 Organic light emitting diode of No as modified by Kwon, Pflumm, Yamamoto, and Katakura by incorporating the hole transport layer material, the electron transport layer material, and the emissive layer materials into the hole transport layer, the electron transport layer, and the green emitting layer of the second emitting part of the device of Kim ‘159, as taught by Kim ‘159.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide provides improved color reproduction range and emitting efficiency.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Organic light emitting diode of No as modified by Kwon, Pflumm, Yamamoto, Katakura, and Kim ‘159 comprising a substrate, a first electrode, a 1st HTL, a 1st emitting material layer (blue), a 1st ETL, a 1st CGL, a 2nd HTL, a 2nd red emitting material layer, a 2nd green emitting material layer (Compound of No as modified by Katakura, Compound 2-42 of No, and Compound 1 of Kwon), 2nd ETL, a 2nd CGL, a 3rd HTL, a 3rd emitting material layer (blue), a 3rd ETL, and a second electrode, wherein each HTL comprises the Compound 7 of Pflumm; each ETL comprises the Compound p5-8 of Yamamoto.
In each emitting part, there is no mixed layer disposed between the emitting material layer and the hole transport layer and between the emitting material layer and the electron transport layer.
Seo teaches that a mixed layer between two neighboring organic layers of an organic light emitting diode (“organic light-emitting device”) contains both the neighboring organic layer materials (“mixed layer” (105) in Fig. 1B; [0050]; 1st and 2nd “mixed region” in Fig. 19).
Seo teaches that by introducing a mixed layer in-between two neighboring organic layers (device structure of Fig. 1B), the energy barrier is lowered and more carriers can be injected ([0054]).
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 Organic light emitting diode of No as modified by Kwon, Pflumm, Yamamoto, Katakura, and Kim ‘159 by incorporating a mixed layer between the hole transport layer and emitting material layer and a mixed layer between the emitting material layer and the electron transport layer, as taught by Seo.
The motivation of doing so would provide the organic optoelectronic device with lowered energy barrier and improved carrier injection, based on the teaching of Seo.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide Organic light emitting diode of No as modified by Kwon, Pflumm, Yamamoto, Katakura, Kim ‘159, and Seo comprising a substrate, a first electrode, a 1st HTL, a mixed layer, a 1st emitting material layer (blue), a mixed layer, a 1st ETL, a 1st CGL, a 2nd HTL, a mixed layer, a 2nd red emitting material layer, a 2nd green emitting material layer (Compound of No as modified by Katakura as a host, Compound 2-42 of No as a host, Compound 1 of Kwon as a dopant), a mixed layer, 2nd ETL, a 2nd CGL, a 3rd HTL, a mixed layer, a 3rd emitting material layer (blue), a mixed layer, a 3rd ETL, and a second electrode, wherein each HTL comprises the Compound 7 of Pflumm; each ETL comprises the Compound p5-8 of Yamamoto; and each mixed layer comprises the materials same as the materials of the neighboring layers.
The device is equated with an organic light emitting diode comprising a substrate, a first electrode, a 1st HTL, a mixed layer, a 1st emitting material layer (blue), a mixed layer, a 1st ETL, a 1st CGL, a 2nd HTL, a mixed layer, a first layer (“2nd red emitting material layer”), a third layer (“2nd green emitting material layer” comprising Compound 139 of Mo as a host, Compound 2-42 of No as a host, Compound 1 of Kwon as a dopant), a second layer (“mixed layer” comprising Compound of No as modified by Katakura as a host, Compound 2-42 of No as a host, Compound 1 of Kwon as a dopant), 2nd ETL, a 2nd CGL, a 3rd HTL, a mixed layer, a 3rd emitting material layer (blue), a mixed layer, a 3rd ETL, and a second electrode, wherein each HTL comprises the Compound 7 of Pflumm; each ETL comprises the Compound p5-8 of Yamamoto; and each mixed layer comprises all the materials included in the neighboring layers, meeting all the limitations of claims 10-17, 21, 23-24, and 27.
The Organic light emitting diode of No as modified by Kwon, Pflumm, Yamamoto, Katakura, Kim ‘159, and Seo reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the Compound 1 of Kwon emits yellow green light.
It is reasonable to presume that the Compound 1 of Kwon emits yellow green light.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
Kwon teaches that the compound of Kwon emits green light of wavelength of 500 nm to 600 nm ([0147], [0157]).
Lee evidenced that the emission spectrum of an Ir complex (i.e. Ir(ppy)3) has the FWHM of around 100 nm and the tails of emission spectrum at the long wavelength side stretches out over 150 nm from the peak wavelength (Fig. 2). Considering both Ir complex of Lee and the Compound 1 of Kwon has same Ir metal center coordinated by three phenyl pyridine based ligands, both compounds have similar optoelectronic properties including at least FWHM of the emission spectrum.
Thus, there must be a non-zero intensity of light in the yellow region (i.e. around 570 to 590 nm) for the emission spectrum of the Compound 1 of Kwon such that the Compound 1 of Kwon must have non-zero yellow green emission light, and the third layer of the Organic light emitting diode of No as modified by Kwon, Pflumm, Yamamoto, Kim ‘159, and Seo should be a yellow green emitting layer, meeting all the limitations of claims 22 and 25.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the Organic light emitting diode of No as modified by Kwon, Pflumm, Yamamoto, Katakura, Kim ‘159, and Seo is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights