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 .
The office acknowledges the receipt of applicants’ response to the restriction requirement dated 01/06/2026.
Elected Species
PNG
media_image1.png
602
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A search of the prior art did not show the elected species. As no claims where specifically drawn to applicants’ elected species in independent form, no claims have been indicated as allowable. Claims written in independent form which require all the limitations of the elected species along with any dependent claims which require all the limitations of the elected species would be allowable. Under MPEP 803.02, the search was expanded to find an examinable species.
Examinable Species
The examinable species is represented by:
Subspecies A: tris(2-phenylpyridine)iridium (Ir(PPY)3)
Subspecies B: 4,4′,4″-triscarbazolyl-triphenylamine (TCTA)
Subspecies C: 4,4′-cyclohexylbis[N,N-bis(4-methylphenyl)aniline] (TAPC)
The examinable species reads on claims 1-11, 13 and 17-20. Claims 12 and 14-16 are withdrawn from further consideration as not reading on the examinable species.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The specification recites two separate embodiments:
(1) the hole transport region may include an electron-blocking layer, the electron-blocking layer may include a first electron-blocking material and a
second electron-blocking material (paragraphs 12-13);
(2) the electron-blocking layer in the light-emitting device may
include a first electron-blocking layer and a second electron-blocking layer between the first electron-blocking layer and the emission layer, wherein the first electron blocking layer may include the first electron-blocking material, and the second electron-blocking layer may include the second electron-blocking material (paragraph 44).
The specification enables both embodiments but claim 1 is drawn the first embodiment not the second embodiment.
Claim 1 recites a single electron blocking layer based on embodiment 1. Dependent claim 3 recites a first electron blocking layer and a second electron blocking layer under embodiment 2. Therefore, claim 3 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim 1 as there is not antecedent basis for two electron blocking layers in claim 1.
The office interprets the claims in the light of the specification but limitations cannot be read into the claims from the specification. Therefore, claims 3-4 are rejected.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-11, 13, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (US 2017/0194591 A1).
Regarding Claims 1-2, 5-11, 13, Wang teaches an electronic device represented by a first electrode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, a light-emitting layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode (paragraph 58). Thus, the hole transport region contains an electron blocking layer between the first electrode and the light emitting layer.
The light emitting layer contains a guest represented by tris(2-phenylpyridine)iridium Ir(PPY)3 (metal containing organometallic compound) (Subspecies A) (paragraph 57).
The electron blocking layer contains a guest material D (corresponds to applicants’ first electron blocking material) (Subspecies B) and a host material E (corresponds to applicants’ second electron blocking material) (Subspecies C) (paragraph 83).
The guest material D (corresponds to applicants’ first electron blocking material) is represented by 4,4′,4″-triscarbazolyl-triphenylamine (TCTA) (paragraph 86). TCTA has a hole mobility of 3 X 10-4 cm2 V-1 s-1 (Light: Science & Applications (2013), page 4).
The host material E (corresponds to applicants’ second electron blocking material) is represented by 4,4′-cyclohexylbis[N,N-bis(4-methylphenyl)aniline] (TAPC) (paragraph 86). TAPC has a hole mobility of 1 X 10-4 cm2 V-1 s-1 to 1 X 10-3 cm2 V-1 s-1 (Google Data Search 2026).
The hole mobility of the host material E (TAPC) (corresponds to applicants’ second electron blocking material) over the hole mobility of the first guest material D (TCTA) (corresponds to applicants’ first electron blocking material) may be configured to be greater than or equal to about 10 (paragraph 31).
The above hole mobility data shows that TAPC (second electron blocking material) can have a higher hole mobility than TCTA (first electron blocking material) (per claims 1 and 13, 17).
The electron blocking layer is in direct contact with the light emitting layer (per claim 2).
The hole transport layer is between the electron blocking layer and the first electrode. The hole transport layer contains a hole transport material represented by N,N-diphenyl-N,N-bis(1-naphthyl)-1,1-diphenyl-4,4-diamine (NPB) (paragraph 59) (per claim 5).
The hole mobility and NPB is (3-6) X 10-4 Cm2/V s (Tong J. Applied Physics 102, 2007) (page 093705-4). (3-6) X 10-4 Cm2/V s is located within applicants’ range (per claim 6).
The hole mobility of NPB (hole transport material) is (3-6) X 10-4 Cm2/V s and the hole mobility TCTA (corresponds to applicants’ first electron blocking material) has a hole mobility of 3 X 10-4 cm2 V-1 s-1 shows the hole mobility of NPB (hole transport material) can be the same or higher than the hole mobility of the TCTA. The above also shows that TAPC (second electron blocking material) can have a higher hole mobility than TCTA (first electron blocking material) (per claim 7).
The hole transport layer is in direct contact with the electron blocking layer (per claim 8).
Ir(PPY)3 is known in the art as a very common phosphorescent dopant (per claim 9).
The device can emit a blue color (paragraph 130) (per claim 10).
Ir(PPY)3 contains three bidentate phenyl-pyridine ligands (per claim 11).
Regarding Claim 18, Wang teaches an OLED, electronic device and a display panel (abstract). The display panel is viewed as an electronic apparatus (per claim 18).
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.
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2017/0194591 A1) in view of Suh (US 2006/0124924).
Regarding Claim 19, Wang teaches an OLED, electronic device and a display panel (abstract). Wang fails to mention a thin film transistor.
Suh teaches thin film transistor (TFT) and an organic electroluminescent display including the same. The organic electroluminescent display includes: a gate electrode; source and drain electrodes that are insulated from the gate electrode; an organic semiconductor layer (active layer) that is insulated from the gate electrode and electrically connected to the source and the drain electrodes. The TFT is used in a flat panel display (abstract).
As both Wang and Suh teach electronic devices including OLED displays, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to have used the display of Wang a known application for an (per claim 19and active layer as taught Suh which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claims 19).
Regarding Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2017/0194591 A1) in view of Yoon (US 2017/0269435).
Regarding Claim 20, Wang teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 18, but fails to mention a color filter, a color conversion layer, a touch screen layer or a polarizing layer.
Yoon discloses display devices are classified into a liquid crystal display (“LCD”) device, an organic light emitting diode (“OLED”) display device, a plasma display panel (“PDP”) device, an electrophoretic display (“EPD”) device, and the like, based on a light emitting scheme thereof (paragraph 5). A display device may include a color conversion layer configured to improve light efficiency (paragraph 3).
The office views the above as a generic teaching showing that a color conversion layer can be added to a display device to improve light efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention to have modified the display device/apparatus of Wang by adding a color conversion layer (which reads on the instant limitations) since Yoon teaches that a color conversion is configured to improve light efficiency, absent unexpected results (per claim 20).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY D CLARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7087. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-4PM M-F.
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 Chriss 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.
/GREGORY D CLARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786