Ment 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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR 2021-0173133, filed on 12/06/2021.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1–4, 12–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hwang et al. (US 2022/0238804 A1, provided within Applicants’ IDS filed on 12/04/2025, hereafter Hwang).
Regarding Claims 1 and 12, Hwang teaches an organic light emitting device (OLED) comprising a substrate 1, an anode 2, a hole injection layer 3, a hole transport layer 4, a light emitting layer 5, an electron transport layer 7, an electron injection layer 8, and a cathode 6 (shown below on Fig. 2 of Hwang). In such a structure, the hole injection layer includes the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1, and the hole transport layer includes a polymer including a repeating unit represented by Chemical Formula 2-1, a repeating unit represented by Chemical Formula 2-2, and a repeating unit represented by Chemical Formula 2-3 [0146].
PNG
media_image1.png
333
276
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hwang further teaches Chemical Formula I, exemplified by Compound 1 [0147]. Compound 1 reads on Applicants’ Formula 1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image2.png
330
627
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
376
544
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein:
CY1–CY4 are each a C6 carbocyclic group (benzene),
T1–T4 are each a hydrogen atom,
b1 and b3 are each 3, while b2 and b4 are each 4,
L12 and L32 are each an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenylene),
a12 and a32 are each 1,
L11, L13, L31, and L33 are each a single bond since a11, a13, a31, and a33 are each 0,
Ar12 and Ar32 are each a C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl) substituted with five R10a which are deuterium atoms,
Ar11 and Ar31 are each a C13 carbocyclic group (fluorene) substituted with two R10a;
the first R10a is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl);
the second R10a is a C1 alkyl group (methyl) substituted with a C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl) which is further substituted with a C2 alkenyl group (ethenyl). This combination will be result in a (4-ethenylphenyl)methyl group as the second R10a.
An OLED, as described above, including Compound 1 in the hole injection layer reads on Applicants’ limitations of claim 1 and 12.
Regarding Claim 2, an OLED, as described above, including Compound 1 in the hole injection layer reads on Applicants’ limitation since Compound 1 is within the interlayer (between the cathode and anode) [0146].
Regarding Claim 3, an OLED, as described above, including Compound 1 in the hole injection layer reads on Applicants’ limitation since the OLED has an anode, a cathode, a hole transport region comprising a hole injection layer and a hole transport layer, and an electron transport region comprising an electron injection layer and an electron transport layer [0146].
Regarding Claim 4, an OLED, as described above, including Compound 1 in the hole injection layer reads on Applicants’ limitation since the hole transport region comprises the hole injection layer.
Regarding Claim 13, Compound 1 reads on Applicants’ limitation since CY1–CY4 are each a benzene group.
Regarding Claim 14, Compound 1 reads on Applicants limitation since the group represented by
PNG
media_image4.png
89
164
media_image4.png
Greyscale
is a group represented by Formula 1-5-2 (shown below).
PNG
media_image5.png
178
163
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
376
544
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, Compound 1 reads on Applicants limitation since the group represented by
PNG
media_image6.png
88
163
media_image6.png
Greyscale
is a group represented by Formula 1-5-2 (shown below).
PNG
media_image5.png
178
163
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
376
544
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 16 and 17, Compound 1 reads on Applicants’ limitations since L12 and L32 are each an unsubstituted benzene group represented by Formula 1-6-1 (shown below), wherein R10a is a hydrogen atom and n10a is 4.
PNG
media_image7.png
157
137
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
376
544
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 18 and 19, Compound 1 reads on Applicants’ limitations since Ar12 and Ar32 are each a benzene group substituted with five deuterium atoms represented by Applicants’ Formula 1-1 (shown below), wherein T5 and T6 are each a deuterium atom.
PNG
media_image8.png
262
159
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
376
544
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 20, Compound 1 reads on Applicants’ limitation since Ar11 and Ar31 are a group represented by Applicants’ Formula 1-3 (shown below),
PNG
media_image9.png
281
222
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
376
544
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Z1 is C(T7)(T8),
CY5 and CY6 are each a C6 carbocyclic group (benzene),
T5a and T6a are each a hydrogen atom, while b5 and b6 are 3,
T7 is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl),
T8 is a C1 alkyl group (methyl) substituted with a C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl) which is further substituted with a C2 alkenyl group (ethenyl). This combination will be result in a (4-ethenylphenyl)methyl group as T8.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hwang et al. (US 2022/0238804 A1) as applied to claims 1–4, 12–20 above. Seo et al. (US 2004/0137270 A1, hereafter Seo) is provided as an evidentiary reference for claim 8.
Regarding Claim 8, Hwang teaches an organic light emitting device (OLED) comprising a substrate 1, an anode 2, a hole injection layer 3, a hole transport layer 4, a light emitting layer 5, an electron transport layer 7, an electron injection layer 8, and a cathode 6 (shown below on Fig. 2 of Hwang). In such a structure, the hole injection layer includes the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1, and the hole transport layer includes a polymer including a repeating unit represented by Chemical Formula 2-1, a repeating unit represented by Chemical Formula 2-2, and a repeating unit represented by Chemical Formula 2-3 [0146]. Hwang further teaches Chemical Formula I, exemplified by Compound 1 [0147].
Additionally, Hwang teaches Compound A and Compound B (shown below) which are used in the light emitting layer for all of the device examples [0235].
PNG
media_image10.png
268
146
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
353
319
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Hwang appears silent with respect to the property of their light emitting layer emitting blue light.
Seo recites an emitting layer having a plurality of materials and being a blue emitting material using a chemical formula 1 as a dopant [0017]. Seo’s chemical formula 1 is exemplified by Compound S-12, which is identical to Compound B. Seo further recites a material forming the emitting layer together with the material of the chemical formula 1 is formed as a structure of a following chemical formula 2 [0020]. Seo’s chemical formula 2 is exemplified by Compound H-16, which is identical to Compound A.
Since Seo teaches a light emitting layer that emits blue light comprised of Compound S-12 and Compound H-16, the same structure as Compound B and Compound A disclosed by the Applicant, the property of blue emission is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2022/0238804 A1).
Hwang teaches an organic light emitting device (OLED) comprising a substrate 1, an anode 2, a hole injection layer 3, a hole transport layer 4, a light emitting layer 5, an electron transport layer 7, an electron injection layer 8, and a cathode 6 (shown below on Fig. 2 of Hwang). In such a structure, the hole injection layer includes the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1, and the hole transport layer includes a polymer including a repeating unit represented by Chemical Formula 2-1, a repeating unit represented by Chemical Formula 2-2, and a repeating unit represented by Chemical Formula 2-3 [0146]. Hwang further teaches Chemical Formula 1, exemplified by Compound 1 [0147]. Since Compound 1 is of Chemical Formula 1, and compounds of Chemical Formula 1 are used in the hole injection layer, Compound 1 can therefore transport holes.
However, Hwang does not teach a hole transport layer comprising Compound 1.
It would be obvious to add Compound 1 to a hole transport layer of an OLED because Compound 1 can transport holes. The motivation would be to optimize the voltage, efficiency, and lifetime benefits taught by Hwang [0241].
Claims 6–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2022/0238804 A1) as applied to claims 1–4, 8, 12–20 above, and further in view of Im et al. (US 2006/0113907 A1, hereafter Im).
Regarding Claim 6, Hwang teaches an organic light emitting device (OLED) comprising a substrate 1, an anode 2, a hole injection layer 3, a hole transport layer 4, a light emitting layer 5, an electron transport layer 7, an electron injection layer 8, and a cathode 6 (shown below on Fig. 2 of Hwang). In such a structure, the hole injection layer includes the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1, and the hole transport layer includes a polymer including a repeating unit represented by Chemical Formula 2-1, a repeating unit represented by Chemical Formula 2-2, and a repeating unit represented by Chemical Formula 2-3 [0146]. Hwang further teaches Chemical Formula 1, exemplified by Compound 1 [0147].
However, Hwang does not teach a capping layer formed on one of the electrodes.
Im teaches an organic light emitting diode display comprising a substrate, a first electrode, an organic layer including at least an organic emission layer, a second electrode, and an organic capping layer formed on the second electrode [0015]. Im further teaches that an organic capping layer having a refractive index of at least 1.7 on a second electrode increases the efficiency and lifetime of an OLED display [0014]. In Embodiment 1, the capping layer is an arylene-diamine derivative having a 1.7 or more refractive index [0053].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a capping layer taught by Im to the OLED taught by Hwang, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Im and Hwang according to known methods to yield predictable results of an OLED with increased efficiency and lifetime [0014], as taught by Im. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
An OLED, as described above, comprising a capping layer over the second electrode reads on Applicants’ limitation of claim 6.
Regarding Claim 7, the OLED device, as described above, comprising a capping layer over the second electrode does not read on Applicants’ limitation since the capping layer does not comprise a diamine compound represented by Formula 1.
Im teaches the capping layer is formed by stacking an organic material having a refractive index of 1.7 or more [0030]. Im further teaches the capping layer may be formed of an arylene-diamine derivative, a triamine derivative, CBP, and/or aluminum quinolate (Alq3). [0030].
Applicants’ specification recites that each of the first capping layer and the second capping layer may include a material having a refractive index of 1.6 or more (at a wavelength of 589 nm) [0353]. Applicants’ specification further recites that the diamine compound represented by Formula 1 may be included in various suitable films including a capping layer [0358]. It follows that a compound represented by Formula 1, such as Compound 1, would have a refractive index of 1.6 or more at a wavelength of 589 nm.
Additionally, refractive index is wavelength dependent. For example, take Fig. 3 from Im (shown below). Here an arylene-diamine derivative is shown wherein the refractive index increases while the wavelength decreases. Notably, the arylene-diamine derivative has a refractive index above 1.8 at a wavelength of 589 nm.
PNG
media_image12.png
198
572
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to use Compound 1 in a capping layer of an OLED device since Im teaches a capping layer comprising an arylene-diamine derivative with a refractive index of 1.7 or more [0053]. Compound 1 is an arylene-diamine derivative with a refractive index of at least 1.6 from Applicants’ specification, as discussed above. Furthermore, Im teaches an arylene-diamine derivate that has a refractive index above 1.8 at 589 nm. Since Compound 1 is an arylene-diamine derivative it will likely also have a refractive index above 1.8 at 589 nm. It would be a simple substitution to use Compound 1 in a capping layer over another arylene-diamine derivative. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that a capping layer comprising Compound 1 would be useful in an OLED having the efficiency and lifetime benefits [0014] taught by Im. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
An OLED, as described above, comprising a capping layer further comprising Compound 1 over the second electrode would read on Applicants’ limitations of claim 7.
Claims 9–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2022/0238804 A1) as applied to claims 1–4, 8, 12–20 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0185942 A1, hereafter Kim).
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, Hwang teaches an organic light emitting device (OLED) comprising a substrate 1, an anode 2, a hole injection layer 3, a hole transport layer 4, a light emitting layer 5, an electron transport layer 7, an electron injection layer 8, and a cathode 6 (shown below on Fig. 2 of Hwang). In such a structure, the hole injection layer includes the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1, and the hole transport layer includes a polymer including a repeating unit represented by Chemical Formula 2-1, a repeating unit represented by Chemical Formula 2-2, and a repeating unit represented by Chemical Formula 2-3 [0146]. Hwang further teaches Chemical Formula 1, exemplified by Compound 1 [0147].
Hwang teaches that the compounds according to the present disclosure may be included in an organic solar cell or an organic transistor in addition to an organic light emitting device [0151].
However, Hwang does not teach an electronic apparatus including a light emitting device and a thin-film transistor, wherein the thin-film transistor comprises a source electrode and a drain electrode, and the first electrode of the light emitting device is electrically connected to at least one selected from the source electrode and the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor.
Kim teaches an OLED display device with a touch screen including a display panel, an
encapsulation film, and a touch screen. The display panel is an OLED panel and includes a
switching thin-film transistor, a driving thin-film transistor, and an organic light emitting diode
in each pixel region. The organic light emitting diode in the pixel region sequentially emit red,
green, and blue light [0029]. Kim further teaches a first electrode is formed on the inter
insulating layer in each pixel region, and the first electrode contacts the drain electrode of the driving thin-film transistor. The first electrode has a double-layered structure including a first
layer as a reflector and a second layer as an anode (of the OLED display device) [0048] – [0051].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the OLED device as discussed above,
taught by Hwang, in the OLED display device with a touch screen, taught by Kim, because this
would have been combining the prior art elements of Hwang and Kim according to known
methods to yield predictable results of a thin-film transistor electroluminescent device with
voltage, efficiency, and lifetime benefits, as taught by Hwang [0241]. See MPEP
2143.I.(A).
The resulting OLED display device with a touch screen, from the combination of Hwang and Kim as described above, would read on Applicants’ claims 9 and 10 as it is an electronic apparatus comprising a light emitting device and a thin film transistor wherein the first electrode (anode) of the light emitting device is electrically connected to the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor.
Regarding Claim 11, the resulting OLED display device with a touch screen, from the combination of Hwang and Kim as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since it includes a touch screen. Additionally, Kim teaches the OLED display device may further include a polarizing film at an outer surface of the touch screen to prevent reflection due to external light [0030].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al. (US 2016/0260901 A1) teaches compounds which could be modified according to Formula 1A to read on Applicants’ Formula 1 of independent claims 1 and 12.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES RICHARD FORTWENGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-5433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.R.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789