DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 18 June 2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1, 8, 13, and 17 have been amended.
Claims 18-20 are cancelled.
Claims 1-17 are pending.
The amendment to claim 17 has overcome the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the last Office action. The rejection has been withdrawn.
The amendments to claims 1, 13, and 17 have overcome the rejections of claims 1-5, 10, 13, 16-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha et al. (US 2021/0253512 A1) (hereafter “Ha”) in view of Tanaka et al. (US 6,777,111 B1) (hereafter “Tanaka”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejections of claims 6-7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha et al. (US 2021/0253512 A1) (hereafter “Ha”) in view of Tanaka et al. (US 6,777,111 B1) (hereafter “Tanaka”), and further in view of Spindler et al. (US 2007/0231596 A1) (hereinafter “Spindler”) and Nomura et al. (US 2009/0160323 A1) (hereafter “Nomura”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha et al. (US 2021/0253512 A1) (hereafter “Ha”) in view of Tanaka et al. (US 6,777,111 B1) (hereafter “Tanaka”), and further in view of Kim (US 2002/0149710 A1) (hereinafter “Kim ‘710”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha et al. (US 2021/0253512 A1) (hereafter “Ha”) in view of Tanaka et al. (US 6,777,111 B1) (hereafter “Tanaka”), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0287985 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘985”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
The amendments to claims 13 and 17 have required the revision of the rejections of claims 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (CN 112028853 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Sun”) in view of Tanaka et al. (US 6,777,111 B1) (hereafter “Tanaka”) set forth in the last Office action. The revised rejections are outlined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-5, 10, 13, 16-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha et al. (US 2021/0253512 A1) (hereafter “Ha”) in view of Tanaka et al. (US 6,777,111 B1) (hereafter “Tanaka”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejections of claims 6-7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha et al. (US 2021/0253512 A1) (hereafter “Ha”) in view of Tanaka et al. (US 6,777,111 B1) (hereafter “Tanaka”), and further in view of Spindler et al. (US 2007/0231596 A1) (hereinafter “Spindler”) and Nomura et al. (US 2009/0160323 A1) (hereafter “Nomura”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha et al. (US 2021/0253512 A1) (hereafter “Ha”) in view of Tanaka et al. (US 6,777,111 B1) (hereafter “Tanaka”), and further in view of Kim (US 2002/0149710 A1) (hereinafter “Kim ‘710”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha et al. (US 2021/0253512 A1) (hereafter “Ha”) in view of Tanaka et al. (US 6,777,111 B1) (hereafter “Tanaka”), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0287985 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘985”) set forth in the last Office action have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 18 June 2026 regarding the rejections of claims 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (CN 112028853 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Sun”) in view of Tanaka et al. (US 6,777,111 B1) (hereafter “Tanaka”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendments have avoided the structure of the compounds of Sun.
However, as outlined below, the compounds of Sun can comprise the required formulas II-1 to II-9 of Sun connected to the amine N atom through a phenylene group. This phenylene group can be equated with the instant Ar2 or Ar3, because it is an aryl group comprising a substituent consistent with the instant R10a.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (CN 112028853 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Sun”) in view of Tanaka et al. (US 6,777,111 B1) (hereafter “Tanaka”).
Regarding claims 13-20: Sun discloses the compound shown below {p. 12, Compound 123}.
PNG
media_image1.png
314
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where Ar2 on each of the groups of Sun that can be equated with the instant Ra and Rb can be equated with a phenyl group substituted with a group that can be equated with the instant R10a that is a C1-C60 heterocyclic group.
Sun does not teach a compound similar to the compound shown above except for the feature that the groups that can be equated with the instant Ra and Rb are different.
Sun teaches that the compounds of Sun have the structure of Equation I of Sun, shown below {p. 2, lines 23-28; Equation I}.
PNG
media_image2.png
252
474
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Where Ar1, Ar2, Ar3, and Ar4 can each be aryl or one of the groups Equations II-1 to II-9 of Sun {p. 2, lines 33-37}.
Compound 24 of Sun teaches that Ar4 can be
PNG
media_image3.png
90
110
media_image3.png
Greyscale
in addition to
PNG
media_image4.png
86
114
media_image4.png
Greyscale
of the compound of Sun shown above {p. 9}. Both structures have the structure of Equation II-1 of Sun.
At the time the invention is effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the compound of Sun by substituting one of the groups
PNG
media_image4.png
86
114
media_image4.png
Greyscale
with the group
PNG
media_image3.png
90
110
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, based on the teaching of Sun. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The selection of
PNG
media_image3.png
90
110
media_image3.png
Greyscale
would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the exemplified groups that can be Ar2 and Ar4 of Sun), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Sun does not teach a compound similar to the compound shown above except for the cyclohexane linking group instead being adamantane.
Sun teaches that the compounds of Sun have the structure of Equation I of Sun, shown below {p. 2, lines 23-28; Equation I}.
PNG
media_image2.png
252
474
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Where L can be a C3 to C30 cycloalkyl group {p. 2, line 29}.
Sun teaches the compounds of Sun are useful as materials of the organic layer between the electrodes of an organic light-emitting device {p. 16, lines 3-6 and lines 9-12}.
Tanaka teaches compounds for use in organic light emitting devices {abstract; col. 1, line 66 to col. 2, line 5; col. 13, line 11 through col. 14, line 14}. Tanaka teaches that the compounds of Tanaka can have the structure of the formula shown below {cols. 7, 20}.
PNG
media_image5.png
392
380
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Where Ar1 and Ar2 can each be amine {col. 7, line 28 through col. 9, including structures shown; col. 20, lines 34-50; and col. 21 through col. 23—structures shown}.
Tanaka sought to solve the problem of chemical compound and organic compound film layer stability by providing compounds having good heat endurance and low crystallinity {abstract; col. 1, line 66 through col. 2, line 5; col. 7, lines 31-40; col. 19, line 58 to col. 20, line 9; col. 21, line 3 to col. 22, line 6; col. 34, lines 6-14}. Tanaka teaches that these benefits are due to the presence of the adamantane group {col. 7, lines 31-40; col. 19, line 58 to col. 20, line 9; col. 21, line 3 to col. 22, line 6; col. 34, lines 6-14}.
Tanaka teaches that the compound can be comprised in the organic layer between the anode and the cathode of the organic light emitting device, including the hole transport and light-emitting layers {abstract; col. 1, line 66 through col. 2, line 5; col. 7, lines 40-44; col. 19, line 58 to col. 20, line 9; col. 25-26}.
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 of Sun by replacing the cyclohexane group as L of Sun with an adamantane group, based on the teaching of Tanaka. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a compound having good head endurance and that can be used to make films having low crystallinity, as taught by Tanaka.
Sun does not teach a specific organic light emitting device comprising the compound of Sun.
However, Sun teaches a light-emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, and an interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode {p. 16, lines 3-6 and lines 9-12}.
Sun teaches that the compound of Sun can be used in the interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode {p. 16, lines 3-6 and lines 9-12}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the compound of Sun by using it as a compound of the interlayer of the light-emitting device of Sun, based on the teaching of Sun. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Sun as modified by Tanaka teaches the claimed invention above but fails to teach that an energy level of a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) is from -5.3 eV to -5.1 eV. It is reasonable to presume that an energy level of a LUMO being from -5.3 eV to -5.1 eV is inherent to Sun as modified by Tanaka. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials and like processes which would result in the claimed property.
Paragraph [00115] of the instant specification describes that in general for the compounds of the instant disclosure having the structure of the instant Formula 1 that the LUMO may be from about -5.3 eV to about -5.1 eV. The modified compound meets all of the limitations of the claimed compounds having the structure of the instant Formula 1. Thus, the modified compound of Ha would meet the criteria for having the claimed LUMO energy level.
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 Sun as modified by Tanaka product 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10, 13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (US 2008/0241591 A1) (hereafter “Kawamura”) in view of Ha et al. (US 2021/0253512 A1) (hereafter “Ha”) and Tanaka et al. (US 6,777,111 B1) (hereafter “Tanaka”).
Regarding claims 1-5, 10, 13, and 16-17: Kawamura discloses the compound shown below {paragraph [0038] and p. 16: Compound PD-40}.
PNG
media_image6.png
492
912
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Kawamura does not teach a similar compound to the compound shown above except for having a fluorenyl group in place of the naphthyl groups.
However, Kawamura teaches that the compounds of Kawamura have the structure of the structural formula shown below {paragraph [0012]}.
PNG
media_image7.png
406
896
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Where Ar3 and Ar6 of Kawamura can be aryl having 6 to 24 carbon atoms {paragraph [0012]}.
Ha teaches compounds similar to Kawamura as hole transporting materials as described below.
Ha discloses a light-emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode facing the anode, and an interlayer comprising an emission layer arranged between the anode and the cathode {paragraphs [0240]-[0244]: Example 2}.
The interlayer comprises a hole transport region located between the anode and the emission layer {paragraphs [0240]-[0244]: Example 2}. The hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer and a first hole transport layer {paragraphs [0240]-[0244]: Example 2 where the layer comprising PEDOT/PSS is being equated with the instant hole injection layer, and the layer comprising Compound 2 of Ha is equated with the instant first hole transport layer.}. The first hole transport layer comprises the compound shown below {paragraph [0244] and [0184]-[0185] describing the structure of Ha’s Compound 2}.
PNG
media_image8.png
486
632
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Thus, fluorenyl groups such as those shown above were known to be useful in compounds similar to those of Kawamura.
Therefore, 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 of Kawamura such that the fluorenyl groups of the compound of Ha were used in place of the compound naphthyl groups of the compound of Kawamura, based on the teaching of Kawamura and Ha. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The selection of fluorenyl would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the exemplified groups on the amine N of the compounds of Ha), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and beneficial combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce good performing organic light emitting devices.
Kawamura does not teach that the compound of Kawamura is asymmetric with respect to the central cyclohexyl group.
However, Kawamura teaches that the compounds of Kawamura have the structure of the structural formula shown below {paragraph [0012]}.
PNG
media_image7.png
406
896
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Where R1 and R2 can independently be hydrogen, alkyl, or an alkoxy group {paragraph [0012]}.
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 of Kawamura such that all of the groups R2 are hydrogen while one of R1 is alkyl or alkoxy, based on the teaching of Kawamura. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The selection of alkyl or alkoxy would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the possible groups for R1 and R2 of Kawamura), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and beneficial combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce good performing organic light emitting devices.
Kawamura does not teach a compound similar to the compound shown above except for the methylene linking group instead being adamantane.
However, Kawamura teaches that the compounds of Kawamura have the structure of the structural formula shown below {paragraph [0012]}.
PNG
media_image7.png
406
896
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Where X can be alkylene {paragraph [0012]}.
Tanaka teaches compounds for use in organic light emitting devices {abstract; col. 1, line 66 to col. 2, line 5; col. 13, line 11 through col. 14, line 14}. Tanaka teaches that the compounds of Tanaka can have the structure of the formula shown below {cols. 7, 20}.
PNG
media_image5.png
392
380
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Where Ar1 and Ar2 can each be amine {col. 7, line 28 through col. 9, including structures shown; col. 20, lines 34-50; and col. 21 through col. 23—structures shown}.
Tanaka sought to solve the problem of chemical compound and organic compound film layer stability by providing compounds having good heat endurance and low crystallinity {abstract; col. 1, line 66 through col. 2, line 5; col. 7, lines 31-40; col. 19, line 58 to col. 20, line 9; col. 21, line 3 to col. 22, line 6; col. 34, lines 6-14}. Tanaka teaches that these benefits are due to the presence of the adamantane group {col. 7, lines 31-40; col. 19, line 58 to col. 20, line 9; col. 21, line 3 to col. 22, line 6; col. 34, lines 6-14}.
Tanaka teaches that the compound can be comprised in the organic layer between the anode and the cathode of the organic light emitting device, including the hole transport and light-emitting layers {abstract; col. 1, line 66 through col. 2, line 5; col. 7, lines 40-44; col. 19, line 58 to col. 20, line 9; col. 25-26}.
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 of Ha by replacing the Methylene linking group with an adamantane group, based on the teaching of Tanaka. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a compound having good head endurance and that can be used to make films having low crystallinity, as taught by Tanaka.
Kawamura does not teach a specific device comprising the compound of Kawamura shown above.
However, Kawamura teaches a light-emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode facing the anode, and an interlayer comprising an emission layer arranged between the anode and the cathode {paragraphs [0046]-[0047]}.
The interlayer comprises a hole transport region located between the anode and the emission layer {paragraphs [0046]-[0047]}. The hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer and a first hole transport layer {paragraphs [0046]-[0047]}.
The first hole transport layer can comprise the compound shown of the disclosure of Kawamura {paragraphs [0012], [0014], [0019], [0047]-[0048], [0083]-[0085]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the compound of Kawamura such that the modified compound of Kawamura was used as the material of the hole transport layer of the device of Kawamura described above, based on the teaching of Kawamura. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and beneficial combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce good performing organic light-emitting devices.
Kawamura as modified by Ha and Tanaka teaches the claimed invention above but fails to teach that an energy level of a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) is from -5.3 eV to -5.1 eV. It is reasonable to presume that an energy level of a LUMO being from -5.3 eV to -5.1 eV is inherent to Kawamura as modified by Ha and Tanaka. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials and like processes which would result in the claimed property.
Paragraph [00115] of the instant specification describes that in general for the compounds of the instant disclosure having the structure of the instant Formula 1 that the LUMO may be from about -5.3 eV to about -5.1 eV. The modified compound meets all of the limitations of the claimed compounds having the structure of the instant Formula 1. Thus, the modified compound of Ha would meet the criteria for having the claimed LUMO energy level.
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 Kawamura as modified by Ha and Tanaka product 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.
Regarding claim 10: Kawamura as modified by Ha and Tanaka teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
An organic light emitting device is an electronic apparatus.
Claims 6-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (US 2008/0241591 A1) (hereafter “Kawamura”) in view of Ha et al. (US 2021/0253512 A1) (hereafter “Ha”) and Tanaka et al. (US 6,777,111 B1) (hereafter “Tanaka”), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Spindler et al. (US 2007/0231596 A1) (hereinafter “Spindler”).
Regarding claims 6 and 9: Kawamura as modified by Ha and Tanaka teaches all of the features with respect to claim 2, as outlined above.
Kawamura as modified by Ha and Tanaka does not teach that the hole transport region further comprises a second hole transport layer comprising an amine-based compound and a third hole transport layer comprising the diamine-based compound.
Spindler teaches an organic light emitting device comprising three hole-transporting sublayers: first hole transporting sublayer HTL1 (131) of Fig. 3 of Spindler, second hole transporting sublayer, HTL2 (132.) of Fig. 3 of Spindler and third hole transporting sublayer (HTL3, 133) of Fig. 3 of Spindler {paragraph [0026]}. The first hole transporting sublayer (131), comprises a hole transporting material and stabilizing dopant. The second hole transporting sublayer (HTL2) comprises of a hole transporting material, a second stabilizing dopant and a third stabilizing dopant {paragraph [0026]}. The third hole transporting sublayer (HTL3, 133) comprises mainly a hole transporting material {paragraph [0026]}. In some cases, the first and second hole-transporting materials are the same and the first and second stabilizing dopants are the same {paragraph [0026]}.
The hole transporting materials of Spindler can be selected from known hole transporting materials and include aromatic amines {paragraph [0032]}.
Spindler teaches that such a structure provides organic light emitting devices having good efficiency, low driving voltage, and good stability {paragraphs [0008], [0014]-[0017], and [0251]}.
Nomura teaches the compounds for use in hole transporting layers of organic light emitting devices {paragraphs [0021] and [0129]}.
Nomura exemplifies the compound shown below {paragraph [0015]}.
PNG
media_image9.png
620
588
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Nomura teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Nomura enables devices having low power usage and low driving voltage {paragraph [0010]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Kawamura to comprise the hole transport layer structure of Spindler, based on the teaching of Spindler. The motivation for doing so would have been to use the three-layered hole transport layer of Spindler to enable organic light emitting devices having good efficiency, low driving voltage, and good stability, as taught by Spindler. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the modified compound of Ha as the hole-transporting host material of two of the hole transporting sub-layers of Spindler. The selection of the modified compound of Ha as the hole-transporting host material of two of the hole transporting sub-layers of Spindler would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the possible iterations of hole-transporting materials used in the different layers of the hole transporting stack of Spindler), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the compound of Nomura, shown above, as the hole-transporting host of the remaining layer of the hole transporting layer stack of Spindler. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a compound known to enable organic light-emitting devices having low power usage and low driving voltage, as taught by Nomura.
In the resultant device, the one of the two layers comprising the modified compound of Kawamura can be labeled as the first hole transport layer and the other layer can be labeled as either the second hole transport layer or the third hole transport layer. The layer comprising the compound of Nomura can be labeled as the second hole transport layer or the third hole transport layer. Neither claim 6 nor claim 9 place any limitations on the order of the claimed first, second or third hole transport layers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (US 2008/0241591 A1) (hereafter “Kawamura”) in view of Ha et al. (US 2021/0253512 A1) (hereafter “Ha”) and Tanaka et al. (US 6,777,111 B1) (hereafter “Tanaka”), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2002/0149710 A1) (hereinafter “Kim ‘710”).
Regarding claim 11: Kawamura as modified by Ha and Tanaka teaches all of the features with respect to claim 10, as outlined above.
Kawamura as modified by Ha and Tanaka does not exemplify that the display device is a flat panel display or that the first electrode of the organic light-emitting device is electrically connected to a source electrode or a drain electrode of a thin-film transistor.
Kim ‘710 teaches flat panel display comprising organic light-emitting devices as the light-emitting elements {Figs. 3L and 4 as described in paragraphs [0056]-[0060]}.
The display comprises a thin-film transistor comprising a source electrode, a drain electrode, and an active layer {Figs. 3L and 4 as described in paragraphs [0039] [0059]: Element 265 is the drain electrode, Element 260 is the source electrode, and Element 220-3 is the active layer.}
The first electrode of the organic light-emitting device is electrically connected to a source electrode or a drain electrode of a thin-film transistor {Figs. 3L and 4 as described in paragraph [0059]: Element 265 is the drain electrode and is in electrical contact with the electrode of the organic light-emitting device, Element 310.}.
Kim ‘710 sought to provide a flat panel display produced using reduced mask processes, increasing manufacturing yield {abstract, paragraph [0019], and [0059]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device taught by Kawamura as modified by Ha and Tanaka by using the device as light-emitting elements of the flat panel display device of Kim ‘710, based on the teachings of Kim ‘710. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a flat panel display produced using reduced mask processes, increasing manufacturing yield, as taught by Kim ‘710.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (US 2008/0241591 A1) (hereafter “Kawamura”) in view of Ha et al. (US 2021/0253512 A1) (hereafter “Ha”) and Tanaka et al. (US 6,777,111 B1) (hereafter “Tanaka”), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0287985 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘985”).
Regarding claim 12: Kawamura as modified by Ha and Tanaka teaches all of the features with respect to claim 10, as outlined above.
Kawamura as modified by Ha and Tanaka does not teach that the light-emitting element taught by Kawamura is incorporated into a display device comprising a color filter.
Kim ‘985 teaches a display device comprising a substrate, and on the substrate, a red pixel region, a green pixel region, and a blue pixel region, an organic light emitting device corresponding to each of the red, green, and blue pixel regions {Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0041]-[0044]}. The display device additionally comprising a color filter layer corresponding to the red, green, and blue pixel regions and disposed between the substrate and the organic light emitting diode {paragraphs [0050]-[0052]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device of Kawamura as modified by Ha and Tanaka by including the device in the display device structure of Kim ‘985 described above, based on the teaching of Kim ‘985. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum device structures in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As outlined above, Kawamura et al. (US 2008/0241591 A1) (hereafter “Kawamura”) in view of Ha et al. (US 2021/0253512 A1) (hereafter “Ha”) and Tanaka et al. (US 6,777,111 B1) (hereafter “Tanaka”) are representations of the closest prior art. However, None of Kawamura, Ha, nor Tanaka provide any disclosure regarding the index of refraction of the modified compounds of Kawamura. Neither does the broader prior art provide any teachings regarding the index of refraction of the compounds of Kawamura. While the instant specification provides evidence showing value of the index of refraction of the instant compound HT1, there is no evidence regarding the actual value or the relative value of the value of the index of refraction of the modified compound of Kawamura. Absent teachings regarding the index of refraction of the compounds of Ha or Tanaka, it cannot be determined that the index of refraction of the first hole transport layer is from 1.4 to 1.7 or that the index of refraction is less than the index of refraction of the second hole transport layer of claim 7. Therefore, the current claims 7 and 8 are nonobvious over the cited references.
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 DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DYLAN C KERSHNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights