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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Republic of Korea on 12/14/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 10-2021-0178379 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities: “Formula7” requires a space between Formula and 7 in claims 1 and 21. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 12-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (KR 20200118399 A1) in view of Masahiro et al. (US 2017/0237021 A1) , and further in view of Huang et al. (WO2018/095397 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 5, 12-15 and 18-20, Song et al. ( see abstract, claims, examples , and figures) teach an organic light emitting diode (white organic light emitting device) , comprising a reflective electrode and transparent electrode facing the reflective electrode (first and second electrodes ( see paragraph [0039]) , and the second electrode is the reflective electrodes and the first electrode is the transparent electrode); an organic emitting layer comprising a first emitting part and second emitting part, wherein the first emitting part and the second emitting part are positioned between the reflective electrode and the transparent electrode, wherein the first emitting part comprises a first phosphorescent emitting layer and first fluorescent emitting layer, and the second emitting part comprises a second phosphorescent emitting layer and a second fluorescent emitting layer (see fig. 3 and paragraphs [0040-0042] and [0210]:
PNG
media_image1.png
445
382
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein 110: first light emitting unit, 120: second light emitting unit, 114: the first light emitting layer of the first light emitting unit, 115( not shown but stated in paragraph [0210] on page 19): the second light-emitting layer of the first light emitting unit, 124: the first light-emitting layer of the second light emitting unit, 125: the second light-emitting layer of the second emitting unit, 190: light emission handling layer, and 290: light emission handling layer. Furthermore, Song et al. recognizes that the configuration or the property of the device, it is possible to configure two or more light-emitting layers in the first light emitting unit (110)); wherein the first phosphorescent emitting layer comprises a first compound and second compound, and the first fluorescent emitting layer comprises a third compound, a fourth compound and fifth compound (in as to the first light emitting layer 114 of the first light emitting unit 110, red light emitting layer , which corresponds to the first phosphorescence light emitting layer including the phosphorescence dopant ( second compound) and host ( first compound)) , and the second light emitting layer 115, the yellow-green light emitting layer can be ( see figures 2-4 and paragraphs [0103-0105]); wherein the second fluorescent emitting layer comprises a sixth compound, a seventh compound and an eight compound, and the second phosphorescent emitting layer comprises a ninth compound and a tenth compound ( Song’s configuration the first emitting layer 124 of the second emitting unit 120 the yellow-green light emitting layer, which corresponds to the second phosphorescence light emitting layer, the second emitting layer 125 of the second emitting unit 120 the red light emitting layer and the first light emitting layer 124 of the second light emitting unit 120 is one host corresponds to the ninth compound in one dopant ( the corresponding tenth compound) or two hosts the configuration; see paragraphs [0117-0124] and figures). Song et al. disclose the white organic light emitting display device ( claims and figures: 100) comprising a substrate 101 having RGB ( red, green and blue) regions and the organic light emitting diode disposed on the substrate and in the green pixel region.
Further regards to claim 1, Song et al. do not explicitly recite wherein each of the second compound and the tenth compound is represented by Formula 3 as instantly claimed. However, it is noted that it is commonly known to include Ir-complexes to OLED. Nonetheless, the examiner has added Masahiro et al. to show that it is well known to include an organometallic complex represented by formula 1 :
PNG
media_image2.png
257
311
media_image2.png
Greyscale
having a high quantum efficiency for organic electroluminescent element ( see abstract, claims , examples and figures) meeting the limitation of formula 3 of the instant claims. Song et al. and Masahiro et al. are analogous art in the OLED. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the second and tenth compound of Song et al. to include chemical formula 1 as taught by Masahiro et al. in view of having a high quantum efficiency.
Further regards to claims 1, 4 and 5, Song et al. do not explicitly recite wherein each of the fifth compound and the eighth compound is represented by Formula 7 as instantly claimed. However, the examiner has added Huang et al. to teach ( see abstract, claims, examples and it is well-known in the art of OLED to include an organic compound containing boron represented by formula 90 and formula 91 ( see page 14):
PNG
media_image3.png
119
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
or formula 125 ( see page 15):
PNG
media_image4.png
197
260
media_image4.png
Greyscale
meeting the limitation of formula 7 and FD2 as instantly claimed in view of aiding in improving ink properties for forming light emitting layer of organic electronic device.
Song et al. , Huang et al. and Masahiro et al. are all analogous art in the OLED art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the organic light-emitting device (OLED) of Song et al. for the purpose and effect to improve the emitted light color of the device, the efficiency and life space etc. through the configuration and material of light emitting layer by including formula 1 as taught by Masahiro et al. and formulas 90, 91 and/or 125 as taught by Huang et al.
Further regards to claims 12, 13, 18, 19. neither Song et al. , Huang et al. nor Masahiro et al. explicitly recite “wherein an intensity of a second emission peak of the first fluorescent emitting layer is smaller than an intensity of a second emission peak of the first phosphorescent emitting layer, and wherein an intensity of a second emission peak of the second fluorescent emitting layer is smaller than an intensity of a second emission peak of the second phosphorescent emitting layer” or wherein in the second compound, a ratio of an intensity of a second emission peak to an intensity of a first emission peak is 0.55 or more and 1 or less” as instantly claimed. It is well understood to one of ordinary skilled in the art that the intensity of the fluorescent and phosphorescent emitters materials in the layers are optimizable. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215. Nonetheless, Song et al. recognize when two light-emitting layers are configured in connection with “when the light emission region handing layer is applied the luminescence intensity the device 1 through the device 6 increases in 600 nm through 650 nm which is the peak wavelength of the light emission region of the red light-emitting layer’ and this experiment within one light emitting unit which is the embodiment of the invention the light emission region of the two light-emitting layers becomes distant. Therefore, the agglomeration phenomenon of the light emission region generated between two light-emitting layers can know with the light emission region handing layer being prevented. The light emission region increases with this by evenly making the distribution of the light emission region circulated and it is written [0097-0100]) that the luminescence intensity increases in the desired wavelength area. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art is introduced from the combination of Song et al. , Huang et al. and Masahiro et al. and the intensity of the light-emitting layer can be adjusted and the resonance structure of the device is optimized and the luminescence intensity is enabled to be control to achieve the same intensity and ratio as instantly claimed.
Claim(s) 1-5, 12-15 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (KR 20200118399 A1) in view of Lee et al. (“ Highly efficient inverted top emitting organic light emitting diodes using a horizontally oriented green phosphorescent emitter”, Organic Electronics Vol. 15, Issue 11 Nov. 2014, pages 2715-2718), and further in view of Huang et al. (WO2018/095397 A1).
Regarding claims 1- 5, 12- 15 and 18-21, Song et al. ( see abstract, claims, examples , and figures) teach an organic light emitting diode (white organic light emitting device) , comprising a reflective electrode and transparent electrode facing the reflective electrode (first and second electrodes ( see paragraph [0039]) , and the second electrode is the reflective electrodes and the first electrode is the transparent electrode); an organic emitting layer comprising a first emitting part and second emitting part, wherein the first emitting part and the second emitting part are positioned between the reflective electrode and the transparent electrode, wherein the first emitting part comprises a first phosphorescent emitting layer and first fluorescent emitting layer, and the second emitting part comprises a second phosphorescent emitting layer and a second fluorescent emitting layer (see fig. 3 and paragraphs [0040-0042] and [0210]:
PNG
media_image1.png
445
382
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein 110: first light emitting unit, 120: second light emitting unit, 114: the first light emitting layer of the first light emitting unit, 115( not shown but stated in paragraph [0210] on page 19): the second light-emitting layer of the first light emitting unit, 124: the first light-emitting layer of the second light emitting unit, 125: the second light-emitting layer of the second emitting unit, 190: light emission handling layer, and 290: light emission handling layer. Furthermore, Song et al. recognizes that the configuration or the property of the device, it is possible to configure two or more light-emitting layers in the first light emitting unit (110)); wherein the first phosphorescent emitting layer comprises a first compound and second compound, and the first fluorescent emitting layer comprises a third compound, a fourth compound and fifth compound (in as to the first light emitting layer 114 of the first light emitting unit 110, red light emitting layer , which corresponds to the first phosphorescence light emitting layer including the phosphorescence dopant ( second compound) and host ( first compound)) , and the second light emitting layer 115, the yellow-green light emitting layer can be ( see figures 2-4 and paragraphs [0103-0105]); wherein the second fluorescent emitting layer comprises a sixth compound, a seventh compound and an eight compound, and the second phosphorescent emitting layer comprises a ninth compound and a tenth compound ( Song’s configuration the first emitting layer 124 of the second emitting unit 120 the yellow-green light emitting layer, which corresponds to the second phosphorescence light emitting layer, the second emitting layer 125 of the second emitting unit 120 the red light emitting layer and the first light emitting layer 124 of the second light emitting unit 120 is one host corresponds to the ninth compound in one dopant ( the corresponding tenth compound) or two hosts the configuration; see paragraphs [0117-0124] and figures). Song et al. disclose the white organic light emitting display device ( claims and figures: 100) comprising a substrate 101 having RGB ( red, green and blue) regions and the organic light emitting diode disposed on the substrate and in the green pixel region.
Further regards to claims 1-3 and 21, Song et al. do not explicitly recite wherein each of the second compound and the tenth compound is represented by Formula 3 and Formula 4 as instantly claimed. However, it is noted that it is commonly known to include Ir-complexes to OLED. Nonetheless, the examiner has added Lee et al. to show that it is well known to include a horizontally oriented emitter [Ir(ppy)2tmd] represented by
PNG
media_image5.png
127
145
media_image5.png
Greyscale
( see abstract, , fog. 1 and pages 2715-2718) meeting the limitation of formula 3 and formula 4 of the instant claims. Song et al. and Lee et al. are analogous art in the OLED. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the second and tenth compound of Song et al. to include [Ir(ppy)2tmd] as taught by Lee et al. in view of aiding in efficiency and emission.
Further regards to claims 1, 4 and 5, Song et al. do not explicitly recite wherein each of the fifth compound and the eighth compound is represented by Formula 7 as instantly claimed. However, the examiner has added Huang et al. to teach ( see abstract, claims, examples and it is well-known in the art of OLED to include an organic compound containing boron represented by formula 90 and formula 91 ( see page 14):
PNG
media_image3.png
119
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
or formula 125 ( see page 15):
PNG
media_image4.png
197
260
media_image4.png
Greyscale
meeting the limitation of formula 7 and FD2 as instantly claimed in view of aiding in improving ink properties for forming light emitting layer of organic electronic device.
Song et al. , Huang et al. and Lee et al. are all analogous art in the OLED art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the organic light-emitting device (OLED) of Song et al. for the purpose and effect to improve the emitted light color of the device, the efficiency and life space etc. through the configuration and material of light emitting layer by including [Ir(ppy)2tmd] as taught by Lee et al. and formulas 90, 91 and/or 125 as taught by Huang et al.
Further regards to claims 12, 13, 18, 19. neither Song et al. , Huang et al. nor Lee et al. explicitly recite “wherein an intensity of a second emission peak of the first fluorescent emitting layer is smaller than an intensity of a second emission peak of the first phosphorescent emitting layer, and wherein an intensity of a second emission peak of the second fluorescent emitting layer is smaller than an intensity of a second emission peak of the second phosphorescent emitting layer” or wherein in the second compound, a ratio of an intensity of a second emission peak to an intensity of a first emission peak is 0.55 or more and 1 or less” as instantly claimed. It is well understood to one of ordinary skilled in the art that the intensity of the fluorescent and phosphorescent emitters materials in the layers are optimizable. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215. Nonetheless, Song et al. recognize when two light-emitting layers are configured in connection with “when the light emission region handing layer is applied the luminescence intensity the device 1 through the device 6 increases in 600 nm through 650 nm which is the peak wavelength of the light emission region of the red light-emitting layer’ and this experiment within one light emitting unit which is the embodiment of the invention the light emission region of the two light-emitting layers becomes distant. Therefore, the agglomeration phenomenon of the light emission region generated between two light-emitting layers can know with the light emission region handing layer being prevented. The light emission region increases with this by evenly making the distribution of the light emission region circulated and it is written [0097-0100]) that the luminescence intensity increases in the desired wavelength area. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art is introduced from the combination of Song et al. , Huang et al. and Lee et al. and the intensity of the light-emitting layer can be adjusted and the resonance structure of the device is optimized and the luminescence intensity is enabled to be control to achieve the same intensity and ratio as instantly claimed.
Claim(s) 6-11 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (KR 20200118399 A1) in view of Masahiro et al. (US 2017/0237021 A1) , and further in view of Huang et al. (WO2018/095397 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Duan et al. (US 2020/0203652 A1).
Regarding claims 6-8 and 16, Song et al. do not explicitly recite wherein each of the first compound, the third compound, the sixth compound and the ninth compound is independently represented by Formula 1-1 as instantly claimed. Nonetheless, the examiner has added Duane et al. ( see abstract, claims, examples, figures and to teach it is well-known to include a wide bandgap material represented [0063] by (W-1):
PNG
media_image6.png
151
322
media_image6.png
Greyscale
or (W-7):
PNG
media_image7.png
132
336
media_image7.png
Greyscale
and/or (W-10):
PNG
media_image8.png
126
300
media_image8.png
Greyscale
to OLED meeting the limitation of formulas 1-1 and 1-2 and 2 as recited by the instant claims. Song et al. and Duane et al. are analogous art in the OLED field. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the OLED of song to include the first compound, the third compound, the sixth compound and the ninth compound is independently represented by W-1, W-7 and/W-10 as taught by Duan et al. in view of aiding in bandgap.
Regarding claims 9-11 and 17, Song et al. do not explicitly recite wherein each of the fourth compound and the seventh compound is independently represented by Formula 5 and/or Formula 6 as instantly claimed. Nonetheless, the examiner has added Duane et al. ( see abstract, claims, examples, figures and to teach it is well-known to include a thermally activated delayed fluorescent material represented [0063] by T-27 or T-28 on page 91:
PNG
media_image9.png
277
636
media_image9.png
Greyscale
in OLED meeting the limitation of formula 5 and/or formula 6 as instantly claimed. Song et al. and Duane et al. are analogous art in the OLED field. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the OLED of song to include the fourth compound and the seventh compound is independently represented by T-27 and/or T-28 as taught by Duan et al. in view of aiding in sensitizing.
Claim(s) 6-11 , 16-17 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (KR 20200118399 A1) in view of Lee et al. (“ Highly efficient inverted top emitting organic light emitting diodes using a horizontally oriented green phosphorescent emitter”, Organic Electronics Vol. 15, Issue 11 Nov. 2014, pages 2715-2718), and further in view of Huang et al. (WO2018/095397 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Duan et al. (US 2020/0203652 A1).
Regarding claims 6-8, 16 and 22, Song et al. do not explicitly recite wherein each of the first compound, the third compound, the sixth compound and the ninth compound is independently represented by Formula 1-1 as instantly claimed. Nonetheless, the examiner has added Duane et al. ( see abstract, claims, examples, figures and to teach it is well-known to include a wide bandgap material represented [0063] by (W-1):
PNG
media_image6.png
151
322
media_image6.png
Greyscale
or (W-7):
PNG
media_image7.png
132
336
media_image7.png
Greyscale
and/or (W-10):
PNG
media_image8.png
126
300
media_image8.png
Greyscale
to OLED meeting the limitation of formulas 1-1 and 1-2 and 2 as recited by the instant claims. Song et al. and Duane et al. are analogous art in the OLED field. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the OLED of song to include the first compound, the third compound, the sixth compound and the ninth compound is independently represented by W-1, W-7 and/W-10 as taught by Duan et al. in view of aiding in bandgap.
Regarding claims 9-11, 17 and 22, Song et al. do not explicitly recite wherein each of the fourth compound and the seventh compound is independently represented by Formula 5 and/or Formula 6 as instantly claimed. Nonetheless, the examiner has added Duane et al. ( see abstract, claims, examples, figures and to teach it is well-known to include a thermally activated delayed fluorescent material represented [0063] by T-27 or T-28 on page 91:
PNG
media_image9.png
277
636
media_image9.png
Greyscale
in OLED meeting the limitation of formula 5 and/or formula 6 as instantly claimed. Song et al. and Duane et al. are analogous art in the OLED field. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the OLED of song to include the fourth compound and the seventh compound is independently represented by T-27 and/or T-28 as taught by Duan et al. in view of aiding in sensitizing.
ConclusionAny inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANCEITY N ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:00 am-6:00 pm; IFP; PHP).
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, Mark Huff can be reached at 571-272-1385. 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.
/CHANCEITY N ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737